This is the problem with trying to shoehorn reality into a purist ideology: people. Wherever you go, there you are. Until we learn how to stop being shitty and selfish, democratic government looks like the least bad option.
Democratic government: Shitty and selfish people electing shitty and selfish people to initiate violence against shitty and selfish people and their property.
Libertarianism: Shitty and selfish people not condoning the use of violence against shitty and selfish people and their property.
I wish libertarians would stop their crusade to redefine the word 'violence'. It waters down the word and will eventually make it meaningless if their version catches on.
They're using the same definition as everyone else. People find these allusions to violence odd because the "violence" in governments is fairly far-removed, but this is why libertarians bring it up: to remind/reinforce that this is what's going on behind the scenes.
You cite an example of enforcing private property rights. And you're right, violence is used to enforce private property rights.
I'll admit some libertarians might use "violence" to indicate "badness" a little too readily and/or implicitly in these kinds of analogies (because they likely would be okay with violence to enforce property rights), but both thinks are fundamentally enforced with violence.
This admission doesn't make the analogies meaningless. Eg, a libertarian might say "I'm okay with using violence to enforce property rights, but I'm not okay with using violence to do [other thing]".
Why is it okay to use violence (libertarian definition of) to protect private property rights, but not to protect public property rights? To take a concept from a libertarian elsewhere in the thread: why is the private individual 'magic' and the public not?
This is the irony of libertarianism: "Freedom for everyone, but I get to keep all my goodies!". It's not actually freedom for everyone; it enshrines privilege with the people who already have a lot of wealth. It works against levelling the playing field and against people advancing by merit. If you're born into wealth, you're protected by libertarianism - you'll get better schooling, better networking, better secret-handshake memberships. If you're born into poverty, libertarianism handwaves and mutters something about charity (which is always amusing, because private charities have never amounted to anything like public welfare), but really doesn't care about helping you improve yourself, giving you the tools to become wealthier. The poor don't have private property, so libertarianism flips them the finger. If the poor get shafted by someone's actions, the libertarian answer is "take them to (the skeletal remains of) the court system", something which the poor cannot leverage at all. Factory spewing toxic smoke into your house? Take them to court... oh, you can't afford a lawyer, or at least one that stands a chance. Pity - there are no regulations on air pollution, because that curtails 'freedom' and is 'big government' and so the supposed answer instead is 'take them to court'.
I watched your second video. It's funny that the creator gave libertarianism a great loophole: "Oh, wars of conquest make it alright if the losers have all been killed". It's basically hand-waving away the indicated moral issues about taking things by force and translated means "I get to keep my stuff". It's a bad video full of leading statements and bad assumptions, though it does have nice production values. The entire video frames libertarianism as a mechanism to keep your material goods all to yourself - unsurprising, really, since this is what really underpins the philosophy.
Fundamentally, libertarianism is about people who want to maintain their social privileges and wealth, and not actually about fair opportunity. It's an incredibly selfish philosophy, but it's wrapped in attractive-sounding rhetoric. In any case, to answer the libertarian question "Why should I help anyone else at all?"(paraphrased, but ridiculously clear on every discussion regarding tax), the answer is basically "Because you're human, and humans are social animals that rely on each other; they are not self-sufficient without extreme effort".
As I said, this is not a special definition of violence.
> Why is it okay to use violence (libertarian definition of) to protect private property rights, but not to protect public property rights?
This follows from the libertarian view of rights. People own themselves and the product of their labor and have rights to trade voluntarily. Public property rights (not sure exactly what you're referring to by that, but guessing) tend to conflict with private property rights.
> It's not actually freedom for everyone;
Whether or not what follows this is relevant/worth discussing, I'm not sure what any of it has to do with libertarianism not being freedom for everyone. From a glance it sounds like a mix of interesting (but common) discussion points and straw-men. I'll respond if I have some time later.
Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[1][2] and Georgists[3].
The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.
If as a libertarian you cannot concede these points, we cannot have an intellectually honest discussion of what a libertarian world would be like.
> Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them.
Can you elaborate on this? Ownership is based on both owning the product of your labor and the ability/right to trade property.
> Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense
I think there are a wide range of views on this among people who call themselves libertarians. A popular view is homesteading, which says that you own land once you improve it/mix your labor with it. I think there's some subtle variations in the view with respect to things like whether you own the land itself or just the improvements to it or things like that. Personally I agree that land isn't really something that can be owned. Constructed houses and the like can be owned and people can have rights to these houses but not to the land itself.
> The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying its antithetical to free market principles to own anything indefinitely? Or just land?
I must have missed government agents raping people. Is that a regular occurrence where you are? Because I don't think you have to be libertarian to be against that sort of behaviour. I certainly haven't heard of anyone being raped because they didn't pay their tax.
In any case, if that's your definition of violence, then libertarians are actually anarchists - there can be zero law or tax at all, because as soon as you don't feel like complying, any enforcement becomes 'violence', since ultimately, at the end of the chain, it has to be enforced physically. Unenforceable laws and zero taxes = anarchy. And anarchy is not particularly workable above the level of hunter-gatherers and nomads.
I pay my taxes, various kinds, gladly and without a hint of violence anywhere. As does almost everyone (perhaps a few are resigned rather than glad, but still no violence). It's only when you refuse to pay that a chain of events begins which eventually ends up with you being manhandled by government agents, and then only if you're continuing to physically resist. At that point you can call 'violence', but before then, you're just speaking nonsense.
Edit: Also, you might just find it isn't just libertarians who have a problem with minors and TSA pat-downs. You don't have to classify that as 'violence' to have a problem with it. You say governments aren't magical. I'm saying the word 'violence' is not magical. Something doesn't have to be considered violence to be wrong.
So, wait, a mugger points a gun at you and demands your money. You give him your wallet and he runs off. Your argument seems to be that since he ran off without shooting you, no violence was involved?
> I certainly haven't heard of anyone being raped because they didn't pay their tax.
Oh really? IF you don't pay tax you go to jail. What happens in jail? Do you know the statistics on rape investigations in jail? Well, lets put it this way- they basically don't bother to investigate, and consider it part of the punishment.
Libertarians believe the initiation of force is immoral. Many of them are anarchists because, yes, it is quite hard for a government to exist without initiating force given the definition of government is basically "the mafia that conquered and rules a geographic region." But still there are many libertarians who support the idea of a voluntary government.
>And anarchy is not particularly workable
Prove it.
>without a hint of violence anywhere
Oh really? But you just made the threat of violence quite clear:
>In any case, if that's your definition of violence, then libertarians are actually anarchists - there can be zero law or tax at all, because as soon as you don't feel like complying, any enforcement becomes 'violence', since ultimately, at the end of the chain, it has to be enforced physically.
So, which is it. Are you paying taxes under the threat of "physical enforcement" aka violence? Or are you free to not pay your taxes?
Are you free to not be mugged?
>Something doesn't have to be considered violence to be wrong.
Not the point. Initiating violence against the innocent is wrong.
We point this out to force people like you to admit that you want to do violence against innocent people to pay for things that you value but that you don't want to pay for yourself (what you call taxes.)
By the way, given that Democrats voted for Obama and Obama is the one who signed the legislation that has the TSA molesting children, and the Republicans have done nothing to oppose it, yes, you DO have to be libertarian to claim to oppose the TSA. Otherwise what should we believe? It's not y our fault that this government whose violence you endorse is using it in way you don't approve of? Did you vote for Obama the second time? If so, you endorsed the TSA molestation regime.
you DO have to be libertarian to claim to oppose the TSA. blah blah Obama blah blah
No I don't, because I'm not fucking American^. You're so wound up in this story of yours that you've got blinders on, and can't see the outside world. You're so proud of this 'third way' that libertarians think they've got the lock on, when my country has multipolar politics, as do several others. In my country, Australia, there are two major political blocs (and one of those is itself made of two blocs), but the balance of power is currently held by small parties and independent politicians. So fuck you, fuck you very, very hard for trying to imply that I endorse TSA pat-downs, characterised by you as 'molestation' to make it sound like I was a sex offender by association. I should probably note that at this point in my life, I feel far more abused by libertarians than by the tax department, despite libertarians prattling on about not doing harm to others.
You're so proud that your libertarianism is the 'only' alternative (in your eyes), because if you're not Republican or Democratic, you have to be libertarian? Fuck, Australia considered itself a member of "Third Way" politics[1] decades ago, and that 'third way' is not 'libertarian'. Have you even seen Germany, which has no political parties strong enough to rule in their own right, so they have to form coalitions to get a majority?
All throughout your diatribe you're using simplistic concepts and overdramatised demonisation (like tax = street muggings), which you consider 'inescapable logic' or somesuch. The simple, plastic, PlayMobile philosophy you peddle is directly offensive (you're not a libertarian? then you condone rape!) and has no understanding of political nuance or necessity.
So, I leave you with this: If you hate government as much as you say you do, then move to Vanuatu. Good weather, happy people, no tax at all (unless you're a landlord). Less than a thousand police, and they also double as the army. Tiny government. It's exactly what libertarians say they want, and yet few seem to want to move there - they seem to much prefer the infrastructure bought by taxes. So, you don't want to pay for anything that you're not going to use yourself? Then put your money where your mouth is and move to Vanuatu, instead of implying that people who disagree with you are child molestors.
Oh I read it. And it made a lot of sense, when I was 15.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
The definition of libertarian: People who believe the initiation of force is immoral.
Thus, those trying to forcibly take your property are initiating force. Nothing about that being immoral precludes you from defending yourself or your property.
How is this different from the traditional role of government? When – with the exception of violations of civil liberties (which we probably agree are unethical) – does the government initiate force against those who are not, by consensus of the population, harming others?
That is, what is your definition of "harm" which is broad enough to cover, say, non-violent theft (as my example) and incarceration, but narrow enough to exclude, say, polluting a river? (Or choose another example where you think the government overreaches.)
Further questions:
If I am Libertarian and sovereign me believe polluting a river harms me, so I shoot you; does that give you or your family, who does not believe polluting a river to be harm/violence, the Libertarian-moral standing to shoot me? i.e. do we settle this Hatfield and McCoy style? Would the winners be those with the biggest guns, or do Libertarians, in an attempt to belay further violence, put things to a vote and only initiate force against those who go against the vote?
If I am Libertarian, but am infirm and thus unable to properly defend myself, is it Libertarian-moral to outsource my force-initiation to an outside group? If so, how do the services this group provide differ materially from the services the executive branch of the government provides? If not, what is my recourse; should I die because I am physically weak?
Libertarians, basically by definition, are people with a low group instinct. So any project that requires large numbers of them to work together tends to fall apart.
The other big problem with the micronation / charter city idea is that people get killed over land and water rights in developing nations. Just because you have the national government onside doesn't mean it's safe to ignore angry locals.
That may or may not be true, but it doesn't sound relevant to this case. Despite the headline gloss of a "libertarian paradise," they never actually got to the point of trying to live together or work together.
Rather, it looks like some people either gave their money to a scammer or a guy who just wasn't competent to achieve his plans. As the article says, that doesn't seem like it's anything particular to any political viewpoint.
I do like how some of the larger investors still want to give the plan a shot. Albeit their methods, I think, betray the ideology - so Johnson has proven himself amoral to the philosophy and thus nobody should do business with him again, and in the anarcho vision they would collectively boycott and draft contracts with anyone they associate with to also boycott him, but really they would have to go find new land since they are acknowledging his possession of the plot.
I'm more interested in the politics in trying to approach nations to effectively take a chunk of land out of its jurisdiction. I doubt any state around today is really privy to the idea, and in this context I doubt Chile agreed to anything close to giving this town independence.
I guess it depends on where exactly they stand in the grand spectrum of libertarian-anarchism. I agree with you that it's unlikely that Chile was planning on giving this area any kind of special jurisdiction, and the impression I got from the article was that they weren't really expecting any -- they were just planning on being isolated enough that they ordinarily only had to deal with other people who were similarly politically inclined.
Plenty of libertarian types are fine with enough of a state that you can sue someone for breach of contract. I don't know whether these guys were. Maybe some are and some aren't. Just because they like Rand enough to name the place Galt's Gulch doesn't mean any or all of them were actually expecting hard-core anarchy.
Chile is not a developing nation. It's in the "very high human development" group on the UN human development index, along with the US and the usual European suspects.
Well, I've lived there, and I'll say it's certainly developing, in the sense that its economy is growing, it's building infrastructure, and the infrastructure that is there is nowhere near the standards of the USA or European countries. While I was there, the talk was that in a few years they would escape "Developing nation" status and be "developed", but I'm not sure what index for this they were referring to.
It's pretty disengenious to generalize libertarians as having a low group instinct. Either that, or you are incredibly niave. Many successful entrepreneurs who have built incredible companies have a libertarian bent because of the corruption and coercion they have faced from those who seek to take rather than create.
Libertarian simply means one values the principles of liberty and free will. The only people I have ever met who bash libertarians are liberals who cannot see beyond the narrow world view that has been fed to them by a system hell bent on controlling and exploiting them for its own benefit.
> It's pretty disengenious to generalize libertarians as having a low group instinct. Either that, or you are incredibly niave. Many successful entrepreneurs who have built incredible companies have a libertarian bent because of the corruption and coercion they have faced from those who seek to take rather than create.
Building a company has nothing to do with "high group instinct".
> Libertarian simply means one values the principles of liberty and free will. The only people I have ever met who bash libertarians are liberals who cannot see beyond the narrow world view that has been fed to them by a system hell bent on controlling and exploiting them for its own benefit.
Where Libertarians define "liberty and free will" to mean "absolutist property rights".
But you know, I'm probably just some brainwashed liberal unlike user "911isajoke".
> Where Libertarians define "liberty and free will" to mean "absolutist property rights".
No. Human rights. Basic human rights, such as the ones referred to in the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights (well worth reading, and far less widely read than the amendments themselves.)
By the way, using the word "absolutist" and "rights" in the same phrase is kinda redundant. If it's not an "absolute right" it's not a "right". That's the difference between a right and a privilege. Privileges can be taken away, and often were in the government of King George, resulting in a revolution, many declarations and discussion to figure out what rights man had, etc.
Libertarians merely would like to see all human rights respected and protected.
Unfortunately, many people feel like they deserve privileges that violate other peoples rights, but don't wish to admit that they want to violate other peoples rights (like the current popular movement to amend the constitution to remove the right of freedom of speech to people when gathered in groups).
I don't understand what was supposed to be particularly Randian about this project. It just sounds like a poorly managed housing development with a HOA that selects for political bent rather than ethno-religious (as the original HOAs were used).
It's Randian because they say it is: Objectivism is a shared mythology, and like all mythologies it comes to bits rather badly when forced into contact with reality.
In my experience, most self-declared libertarians aren't very good business-people, and a surprising number work in institutionally-coddled enterprises like real estate, medicine and law. As such, it's no surprise that they're ill-equipped to deal with scam artists.
The Free State Project in the US (which aims at what amounts to a democratic coup in New Hampshire: https://freestateproject.org/) is the only scheme of this kind that seems remotely plausible, but that's in part because their ambitions are relatively modest. They want to get enough like-minded people together in one American state that they can have a significant influence on the local government. They are aiming at a state that already has notable libertarian leanings. And they aren't aiming for an anarcho-capitalist utopia, although some of them are anarcho-capitalists. It's a great democratic experiment, and while my money is on failure it has at least a modest chance of success, and either way it should be fascinating to watch.
Objectivism is a philosophy, not a mythology. This was not an objectivist effort, actually at all. You're giving the article too much credit, it is pretty much all spin.
> most self-declared libertarians aren't very good business-people
This kind of broad smear is exactly the point of the article-- to give you cover so you feel comfortable impeaching your intellectual integrity.
The running joke on libertarians is that they would be immediately eaten if they succeeded in putting their ideas into practice. So an example of that very thing happening seems apposite.
I think that "running joke" is pretty silly, given that libertarians putting their ideas into practice would be pretty well armed. How are you going to eat them? A naive perspective at best.
Secondly, if you have an example of that happening, please, do present it.
IF you're referring to this article, well, you believe what you read in hit piece hatchet jobs?
Seriously, when I'm reading about zoning problems I'm thinking "this isn't anarcho-capitalistic at all". It sounds like the guy just ripped off a bunch of probably fanatics with Chliean land he could not treat in way necessary to build a "libertarian paradise" in the first place.
1. This was an obvious bad idea to anyone who has been in Chile (such as myself) given its location. Namely they wanted to build a "farm" and sustainable development midway between Santiago and Valparaiso, along a main highway, in an area that is borderline desert, yet which has a fair amount of development already, housing neighborhoods, businesses, olive pressing plants and the like... meaning effectively the chilean version of suburbs (convenient to the big city yes) and not a rural farm appropriate area.
Alas, one thing americans do too often[1], especially when buying real estate outside the country, is they want to fly in, buy the property over a long weekend and fly out. I think it's too easy to project american standards for property transactions onto other countries. Any time you're spending thousands of dollars, do your due diligence, and if that means buying a retirement property in another country, spend at least a summer there to make sure you like the country! Chile is really wonderful in many ways, but like everywhere else it has its things that are annoying.
2. It never got off the ground. There are thousands of terrible real estate deals that never got off the ground in the USA, especially after 2008. But no sensationalist articles about them. Why? Because the purpose of this article is purely political... it's to give the people commenting in this thread an opportunity to spew their hate.
3. There is, actually, a libertarian "paradise" in chile. Not only is much of the country pretty close to that definition on a lot of scores, but there's a successful sustainable housing / real estate development there which predates this effort by several years. (I'm not going to mention it by name because they deserve their privacy.)
But of course, you'll never hear about that operation on the pages of Vice or Salon, or any other leftist rag. Unless, of course, they become well known enough and need to be "taken down a few notches", like Ayn Rand seems to every few months, despite being dead for nearly 40 years. (such power to reach out from the grave! If only people felt the need to make up stuff to write 2,000 word articles to bash me with 40 years after I'm in the ground!)
[1] as reported in a variety of expat forums and magazines, and based on the way some of these "gringo focused" operations market themselves. For example, the same property in many central and south american countries is listed online at one price much higher (but with a full service real estate agent attached) online, than it is listed in the local listing services. OR pay dollars and pay twice to three times as much when you buy with pesos.
Dude, the whole world is converting. What direction is China, India, Brazil, Israel, Africa, Southeast Asia, and much of South America, notably including Chile going? Libertarian.
Chile is an excellent example. To prevent it from being taken over by communists, the CIA forced a coup, resulting in a military dictatorship, which was quite terrible. But not knowing economics, Pinoche brought in Americans, namely Milton Friedman a nobel prize winning Libertarian. His advice turned the country around economically producing one of the most prosperous, fast growing, and stable democracies in the region. The chilean government runs a budget surplus, while spending essentially all of their time and taxes on programs for the poor.
Look no further than the USA. Founded by immigrants from Europe, far behind Europe when organized the country developed into super power status in a rapid fashion because the constitution was strong, the federal government was weak and property rights (and human rights generally) were respected.
If you look at history, you find that Libertarianism is so successful, that the only enemy that can vanquish it is itself--- when a country becomes propserous enough -- as europe did, and the USA has-- eventually the politicians are able to collectivize the country in order to loot it, because people are too comfortable to realize what's at stake.
So, yes, the USA is not a libertarian country-- anymore-- and its economic decline and turn to socialism are a tragedy--- but they were, ironically, a tragedy enabled by the paramount success of libertarianism here for most of the countries history.
> Look no further than the USA. Founded by immigrants from Europe, far behind Europe when organized the country developed into super power status in a rapid fashion because the constitution was strong, the federal government was weak and property rights (and human rights generally) were respected.
There are times in US history where you can argue that property rights and human rights in general were respected (but not any time before the end of the Indian Wars), and times when you can argue that the federal government was weak (but not any time after the Civil War) -- but they don't overlap.
Your ideological fantasy interpretation of history is amusing, but not very much related to anything like facts.
I have never asserted that property rights were always respected for everybody for the whole history of this country. To claim that I did is merely to erect a straw man. The propose of which was obviously to try and give yourself cover to throw mud at me personally. That you have chosen this as your avenue of response, I take as a concession of my points in completion and admission of intellectual bankruptcy.
> super power status in a rapid fashion because the constitution was strong
So was the terrorism. Nice constitutions are easy to write, but slaughtering the local population and driving them into deserts and marshes takes more bravery and teamwork.
> you find that Libertarianism is so successful
Well so far it was pretty much equivalent to terrorism (not unlike other Fantasy Systems, like Communism for example).
So where are these successful Libertarian countries. As I mentioned in another comment. For the amount of press and number of adherents this movement is getting, you'd think there would be scores of easy and obvious success examples in today's world to point to.
One of the interesting historic tests of any ideology, no matter what, is that it must be able to survive contact with the rest of the world. Example, if your philosophy is absolute pacifism, there is nothing but the good will of your neighbors preventing them from annihilating you and taking your stuff. Even Tibet had an army.
Also. Highly individualistic ideologies struggle against moderately collectivist ones. And highly collectivist ideologies struggle against moderately individualistic ones.
Better organization and flexibility will generally win against rabble and/or inflexible arrangements.
Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well. Having originated with Rothbard in the 1970s, it's growing every decade pretty significantly.
I'm assuming you're not believing libertarians are pacifists, but since you brought it up in an example, the definition of libertarian is: "One who believes that the initiation of force is immoral". This was a pledge that the LP required all members to sign for many years.
Note the initiation of force is immoral to libertarians, not its use in self defense, or in defense of another.
I do invite you to come hang out in any place where libertarians gather. You'll find that they are nothing if not flexible, as half of them are anarchists, half are not, and none think that they all have to believe the same to work together. (half are pot smokers, half tee-totalers, half pro-life, half-pro choice (though they do agree government should be out of it) half are high tech, half are old school, etc.)
This article, though, really has nothing to do with libertarianism.
> "Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well."
I think you misunderstand the test. It is not whether an ideology has a growing number of believers over an extended period of time (On that measure, Islam is doing far better), but how well it does when actually implemented (i.e. in practice not theory).
The article is claiming that this story is an example of failure when implemented.
But the article is wrong.. most of my libertarian friends don't believe in no government, they believe in a minimalist one... this is a perfect example of where contract law should prevail, which is well within libertarian ideals. It's a matter of one party wronging another, not a failure of libertarian ideology. That which is actually not far from the ideals this country was founded on.
The article itself is an opinion piece with a little bit of facts that don't at all support the opinion. I tend to be more pragmatic still... I feel that the role of a limited central government should be to ensure expected infrastructure to the greater community over time.
That doesn't mean privatizing everything, or socializing it all either. It could mean reassigning roles when things aren't working.. it could mean staying the hell out, and it can mean relaxing regulations in certain ways. It really depends on the situation. For example, health care, I would have rather seen the resources government already spends in an open, competative non-profit insurance corporation. Then establish that as a baseline anyone can buy into... that would act as competition for other hmo's and insurance companies.
FedEx and UPS compete fine with the postal service, though the USPS is fairly locked down with regulation, and could do with some ability to adapt without congressional approval.
It really just depends on a given scenario. Rarely does the government taking over a function as a whole serve anyone better than some level of competition.
To be clear, my ding is not just against libertarianism, but against ideologies that set up shop on the endpoints of the axis that goes from "individualism" to "collectivism".
Libertarianism, while not out on the cliff edge of individualism, at least has reserved seats for a great view of it. (I'm being very careful here not to call libertarianism an "extreme" ideology, because I don't think that's a fair assessment).
There are highly collectivist ideologies way out on the other end of the axis that have entirely different, but equal structural issues (and before you say "communism" that's not necessarily what I'm thinking of).
In either case, highly individualistic or highly collectivistic ideologies almost never survive sustained contact with more moderate, pragmatic outside groups.
Survival of groups of like-minded end-point ideologists almost always require isolation-like implementation approaches because of this simple issue.
Does libertarianism "work"? Hell if I know. I think most evidence points to it not working well over sustained periods. Most "pure" ideologies don't, and the more "pure" the ideology, the less likely it is to be able to sustain itself, even superficially, on the tenants of its core concepts for long. The world is just too messy and libertarianism is just not road tested enough to have figured out what really doesn't work and adjust.
A fully implemented, fully sustaining, libertarian paradise would likely not be much like present day libertarian ideological tenants, but something more moderate in approach, and it might not even be superficially much different than regimes it would be replacing...the differences would be more in small details and guiding philosophy than in more noticeable things.
Why would anyone thik it would succeed? Any other sucessful examples in modern times?
For the amount of seemingly rational and intelligent believers and press this "philosophy" gets, I would expect there by now to be countless of obvious example of it working.
hong kong vs. pre-market reform china,
south korea vs. north korea,
18th century US vs. 18th century mexico,
cayman islands vs. cuba,
singapore vs. jakarta
there are many examples of the more free market society doing better than its counterparts.
Yes there are social mechanisms in the honest use of the word- that is, when someone proves to be a scammer they lose business in a free market. But otherwise a free market is an unregulated market. "very strong state control" is the opposite of a free market. That's central planning, and despite the name "Socialism" there's not much social about it because it does not benefit society, but it benefits the people who dictate prices (namely government bureaucrats.)
It pretty much is these days with the sharp turn towards fascism that both the left and the right have taken. Remember, fascism is not about racism, but about absolute government control over the economy. Obama has effectively nationalized several major industries, such as health care and the auto industry during his two terms. That's fascism.
I hate it when clearly American authors always equate Libertarianism with Capitalism. Originally Libertarianism was an idea that grew out of left wing politics (socialism and communism) in Europe in the 19th century. Only recently have the Americans hijacked the term for their own means. So called right wing Libertarianism.
I wish more people were up to speed with political history because it really gets my goat every time I see someone make this mistake.
> That you have chosen this as your avenue of response, I take as a concession of my points in completion and admission of intellectual bankruptcy.
> No, but they are uncomfortable, hence the down votes. Alas, this is not a site with high intellectual integrity.
> I wonder how many of them have, rather than burning the book, decided to read it and think about it for themselves?
> so you feel comfortable impeaching your intellectual integrity.
> But Hacker News has had a very strong left bias, and a draconian moderation policy going back at least to 2008. You risk being hellbanned for linking to scientific papers here if the papers don't agree with the ideology of the moderators (who, like all unaccountable entities, like to remain anonymous.)
As your comment shows, the topic might indeed be relevant to HN, given the libertarian bent of some in today's startup scene. The submission was no doubt intended to stir up debate about libertarianism. There are some who are made uncomfortable by what they see as inroads being made by libertarians and their ideology, so some push-back is taking place.
Weird. I've seen libertarianism blossom everywhere except seemingly in silicon valley which seems to have gone hard leftist since the initial early pioneers (who were libertainsl-- like Jobs and Wozniak) have left the scene.
But Hacker News has had a very strong left bias, and a draconian moderation policy going back at least to 2008. You risk being hellbanned for linking to scientific papers here if the papers don't agree with the ideology of the moderators (who, like all unaccountable entities, like to remain anonymous.)
>Weird. I've seen libertarianism blossom everywhere except >seemingly in silicon valley which seems to have gone hard >leftist since the initial early pioneers (who were >libertainsl-- like Jobs and Wozniak) have left the scene.
I don't live in Silicon Valley, so I can't tell you any of my first-hand impressions of the area, being that I have none. But what I have noticed is what I perceive to be an increase in articles that discuss 'libertarianism' stemming from the startup scene, often with some alarm. This gets mentioned in conjunction with things ranging from Uber turning its nose up at taxi regulation, to Google's efforts to provide private bus service to its employees, to the effects of gentrification in San Francisco.
That said, again, I don't live there. I'm in the Ottawa, Canada area, which is a relatively sleepy town of bureaucrats that also happens to have a fairly healthy tech scene. You wouldn't call this area 'libertarian' by any remote stretch.
