[BTR]

That is, for a significant time and with a significant population? Does one exist now?

[Chris Rhines]

Nope, and nope. Sorry.

- Chris

[Tamara]

Nope. So far it's been too hard a sell.

Most people are all on board for the "Nobody's going to tell you what to do" part, but drop out when you get to the "...and you don't get to tell anybody else what to do, either" bit.

[GinSlinger]

Hong Kong in the twentieth century was generally assumed to be the closest thing the world will ever see to a Lib. society. The crown eventually lost interest in the tiny isle (espicially after WWII). The governors who were appointed at first were generally weak and allowed themselves to be hamstrung by the business leaders there. Zoning laws were removed, practically no state-sponsered welfare, little environmental restrictions. The tiny Island went from thrid world to first world in less than two decades. There have been some interesting studies done by the CATO institute et al regarding whether HK was a Lib. society or not. They conclude no, but very, very close.

GinSlinger

[TheeBadOne]

Nada

[ojibweindian]

"Nope. So far it's been too hard a sell.

Most people are all on board for the "Nobody's going to tell you what to do" part, but drop out when you get to the "...and you don't get to tell anybody else what to do, either" bit."

Tamara, so true! But I'd also add that most are on board for the "I can do whatever I want" part, but balk at the "I am wholy responsible for my actions" part.

[Skunkabilly]

Hong Kong? Libertian? They certainly aren't allowed to posess arms (my dad turned in his switchblade as a kid to the cops), and their governor has always been appointed by Her Majesty.

[BigG]

Hong Kong? No (shakes head).

[pax]

Frontier societies have often come close to the libertarian ideal of limited government and maximum individual responsibility.

As long as the settlers don't bring the government with them as they strike out for new territory, it takes a certain amount of time before there are enough neighbors around to force other people to do much of anything.

pax

The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone – one which barely escapes being no government at all. – H. L. Mencken

[nualle]

The only frontier society I can think of that didn't establish itself by disenfranchising and displacing the people that were already there is early medieval Iceland. It was not libertarian; it brought oligarchy with it from Scandinavia.

[Soap]

But there is also another tendency among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.

-Frederic Bastiat in The Law.

Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

-Frederic Bastiat in Government.

The man is right.

[another okie]

It wouldn't count as a significant amount of time, but during the Russian Revolution there was an anarchist army that wandered around in the Ukraine killing policemen and telling everyone they were free and then leaving.

[nualle]

another okie: Makhno gave it a good, solid try... but when push came to shove, he had a war to fight (on 3 fronts!) first. Things might have been very different if Lenin & Trotsky had ever intended to honor the treaties they signed with the Makhnovists.

[Blackhawk]

Only possible as long as nobody has any advantage over the others.

IOW, no and no.

[Jeff White]

The more I think about it, I am coming to believe that a true libertarian society goes as much against human nature as communism does.

Let me elaborate before everybody runs out to charge the propellent tanks for their flame throwers.

Just as it's against human nature for a socialist/communist society to work (who will labor hard for the same earnings the slacker gets?) I think that it's pretty much against human nature for people to mind their own business. That would be essential for any libertarian society to work. It seems everyone is worried about what their friends and neighbors are doing. Many people aren't content to live their own lives the way they see fit, it's important that everyone around them do too. I think that this is one of the premises that the socialist wannbees in our society play to. We have anti smoking zealots, anti shooting zealots, anti drinking zealots ad infintum.....But if you ever sit down and talk to most of them you'll find that it's not the specific evil behavior that really attracts them, it's the ability to feel morally superior and exercise control over others.

My personal politics are closer to libertarian then any other party, but I'm starting to believe that a true libertarian society is an unrealistic expectation. I think our founding fathers gave us the best system going, and the busy bodies and control freaks have managed to subvert it..DESPITE all the safeguards and checks and balances the founders had the wisdom to build into our constitution.

Jeff

edited for spelling

[Soap]

Jeff-

I agree! Just like Bastiat said...

[BigG]

Jeff, Daniel, & others: now do you see that you are throwing your vote away if you vote for a Lib candidate? Some people let their idealism lead them around by the nose. Thus we got 8 years of Bill Clinton, the darkest days since LBJ, imho. We deserved him, too, I'm not complaining but I was certainly not happy.

What needs to be done is change one or the other party from within. Those candidates got to get inside and sell their ideas. :fire:

[Azrael256]

I had a history prof last semester who was quite knowledgeable about the old west. He loved cowboys and horses and cattle drives... he told us that, out in the West, the only contact the settlers had with government was getting a land grant and mailing letters... made me love the old west, too.

[MitchSchaft]

the only contact the settlers had with government was getting a land grant and mailing letters...

Too bad it can't be like that any longer!

[Oracle]

Any vote for a candidate that is simply the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Those who vote for Libertarian candidates are almost assuredly voting solely on their principles. It's "compromising" and "settling" for a candidate that doesn't represent your views but may have a better chance of getting elected that has caused and promoted the bloated horrors now known as the Democrat and Republican parties. If more people voted their principles, this wouldn't be the case. A vote for a Libertarian candidate is far less of a "wasted vote" than a vote for a candidate from the two major parties who would then go and violate your principles and pass laws that violate your rights. That is a true "wasted vote".

[Ian]

Jeff - I'm not yet willing to concede that a libertarian society is a practical impossibility. Keep in mind that the Constitution does not outline the ultimate in liberty-oriented government - a fairly large number of the busybodies and control freaks you mentioned had their hands in the writing of the Constitution (most notably Alexander Hamilton). A libertarian Constitution written by libertarians could do a much better job of keeping liberty than our existing Constitution does.

[BigG]

Shameless John Wayne plug: I may sound like a bible beater howling up a revival at a river crossin camp meeting...

but... I DO believe in the Bible and it teaches that human govts at their very best are essentially evil. There is no such thing as a good govt, so you got to settle for a lesser of two evils at minimum.

The idealism (emotion) that calls for a libertarian party (Big or little L) is formed in the same brain that can't articulate what form their governance would take. :scrutiny:

Politics is a selling job, what do the libs have for sale?

[Pointman]

For 11 years in North America. From 1776 to 1787

[Ian]

Yeah, gotta love a Confederation of States that has no power to coerce taxes. :) Still, were the state governments at the time all that libertarian?

[Soap]

BigG- I agree to a certain extent. Since our society is supposedly ruled by 51%, the 51% would have to believe in a libertarian society for it to ever be implemented. The situation will never lean that direction if I voted GOP anymore than if I voted Democrat. The key issue is preaching the gospel of freedom and self-reliance in a world that believes in restriction and collectivism. Voting occupies the tiniest part of my overall political activity, e.g., I can't stand when people are asked what they did for RKBA and they state: "I vote."

[nualle]

BigG wrote:
I DO believe in the Bible and it teaches that human govts at their very best are essentially evil. There is no such thing as a good govt, so you got to settle for a lesser of two evils at minimum.
The Bible can't help us much in the search for libertarian society. It teaches that human govts are essentially evil as an extension of the teaching that humans are essentially evil (original sin and all that) -- only improveable by dint of external intervention. The only "good" govt, in those circumstances, would be a theocracy that has inerrant communication with Theos. The first known attempt at that looked an awful lot like small-scale communism (or small-scale totalitarianism, which may well amount to the same thing). The most successful, longest-running version gave us the "divine right" hierarchical regimes that the Enlightenment philosophes found so much to complain about. (...that then got us started toward the current experiments in equality and freedom.)

Libertarianism isn't a viable philosophic option for those who believe that humans aren't sufficient unto ourselves -- that we require outside intervention to approach good.

Personally, I think humans have the basic equipment necessary to make a go at anarchic society, but that it requires some pretty admirable qualities in the people trying it to have any chance of succeeding. Trying it as a small, homogeneous group seems also to help (see: the Basques).

[BigG]

Hi Nualle,

You say a libertarian society where I used the term govt for a specific reason. Society sounds as if it were an Utopian ideal not a viable system of ensuring the highest and best for as many as possible.


There is a certain element in the human psyche that looks for "sumpin for nuthin." While "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is one of the favorite sayings of members around here, a goodly portion of humanity is looking for exactly that.

If I may paraphrase, your views that human nature in general is improvable sounds like idealism to me but to find out if a libertarian govt is possible all you have to do is sell it to more than half the voters in this fair country. Good luck!
:)

[matis]

Politics IS a selling job.

Libertians offer: The liberty to stand on your own two feet, take full responsibility for yourself. You can be free but you have NO claim on others.

Socialists offer: Life is tough and we're here to help you. You have a right to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, free medical care, medicines, rent control, price control, free schools, welfare, etc., ad nauseum.

Which philosophy do YOU think will get more customers (voters)?

Which one IS getting more customers?

I see the United States, the greatest form of government, so far, continuing to degenerate, because there are far more people afraid of self-responsibility than there are those who prefer it.

NO WAY you can convince a majority to prefer freedom, given the responsibility that it requires.

It's a viscious circle. People afraid to rely on themselves tend toward socialism, which then uses its institutions (e.g. government schools) to inculcate and exacerbate that dependency.

Just look around you.



A cynic is someone who sees things as they really are, rather than as we would wish them to be.
Ambrose Bierce in THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY.

The human spirit IS glorious, but it is also rare.


Sorry boys and girls, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Matis

[nualle]

Hi BigG,
You say a libertarian society where I used the term govt for a specific reason. Society sounds as if it were an Utopian ideal not a viable system of ensuring the highest and best for as many as possible.
Libertarian (most individual freedom) isn't at all the same thing as "ensuring the highest and best for as many as possible." IMO, the latter sounds like Utilitarianism, which (also IMO) is utopian, totally impracticable, and philosophically self-inconsistent.

The reason I changed the term from govt to society is that, when libertarianism (individual freedom) is taken to its logical extreme, it is anarchism. And anarchism is antithetical to govt. Govt is inherently coercive (the 49% who lost the election will be held by force to abide by the results). Anarchists don't need govt -- they do what they can themselves, cooperate for stuff they need that they haven't got the capacity to do themselves, and make do without the rest.

There is a certain element in the human psyche that looks for "sumpin for nuthin." While "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is one of the favorite sayings of members around here, a goodly portion of humanity is looking for exactly that.
Thus the requirement for admirable qualities to make anarchism work (the adult realization that there is no free lunch ...that accepting a free lunch puts one in debt to the provider, and so is to be avoided in any case). Cheating -- looking for "sumpin for nuthin" -- is endemic to all systems. In smaller-scale groups, however, it may be easier to detect and punish (by refusing to cooperate further with) a known cheater. In an anarchistic society, cheaters can't long hide.

If I may paraphrase, your views that human nature in general is improvable sounds like idealism to me but to find out if a libertarian govt is possible all you have to do is sell it to more than half the voters in this fair country. Good luck!
Even worse: I'm so starry-eyed that I don't think human nature needs any improving. We know what good behavior looks like. We can choose, as free individuals, to act that way. The more we do what we know to be equitable and reward others who act the same way by cooperating with them, the more cheaters will find themselves out in the cold.

"Human nature" does not have to be a synonym for "bad behavior." That it is so often used as such is evidence of an essentially otherworldy focus... one that isn't ultimately helpful in building a better here-and-now.

[BigG]

Matis, bro, you is preachin to the choir! :D I hate to agree with you but all you have to do is look around with an unbiased eye. Don't reality suck! :uhoh:

[BigG]

Hi again Nualle,

You have some pretty admirable ideals in your model but aren't we forgetting sompin?

There are external forces that we have no control over that will coerce us to their will unless we band together to repel them. That assumes organization on our part and unavoidably hierarchy and all the warts that come with it. Think of the Mongols or Huns for example.

Not only that, for any sort of trade or exchange, we need infrastructure, money, roads, communications, etc. etc. It would also be nice to have electricity to keep our ding dongs, Ho hos, and ice cream cold...

Jus thinkin... :D

[nualle]

You have some pretty admirable ideals in your model but aren't we forgetting sompin?

There are external forces that we have no control over that will coerce us to their will unless we band together to repel them. That assumes organization on our part and unavoidably hierarchy and all the warts that come with it. Think of the Mongols or Huns for example.
Anarchism doesn't preclude cooperation on a middling-large scale. Those who have a good head for strategy get to lead the military effort. They don't have to also lead in other ways. Against hierarchical invaders, if an anarchist band is lucky enough to be on reasonably defensible land that is not terribly attractive to invaders (mountainous is good for this... see the Basques again -- also, to some extent, the Swiss), then you can make yourself ungovernable. Make it more expensive to collect taxes than the effort is worth.

Not only that, for any sort of trade or exchange, we need infrastructure, money, roads, communications, etc. etc. It would also be nice to have electricity to keep our ding dongs, Ho hos, and ice cream cold...
The people in an area who want stuff that comes from far away can encourage that by taking it upon themselves to maintain their local infrastructure.

Electricity doesn't require a monopolistic provider feeding a huge grid. In fact, it's more efficient to make it locally. Some areas with power maintenance problems have even taken to buying excess power generated by local producers and reselling it to consumers. That makes them power brokers rather than power producers... how much juice is getting lost in that double transfer? Far better to let the smaller excess producer supply an appropriate number of consumers directly.

[Chris Rhines]

I'm rapidly becoming convinced that people who have to be convinced to seek freedom, don't deserve to have it.

- Chris

[matis]

Reality don't suck THAT bad -- at least we have the CHOIR!:D

Matis

[BigG]

Nualle: I am still trying to absorb the possibilities of your outlook.

Chris Rhines: I am convinced of the theory expressed here but the attempts to explain the practical side are eluding me. Care to enlighten? ;)

[Glock Glockler]

I'm rapidly becoming convinced that people who have to be convinced to seek freedom, don't deserve to have it.

Perhaps, but also keep in mind that most people don't have the slightest clue what freedom even is. Usually, when someone finally does discover what, in fact, it is, seeking it is very natural.

BTW, do you deserve to have it, if so, I hope you'll want to convince them to seek it?:)

[Bahadur]

Matis:
NO WAY you can convince a majority to prefer freedom, given the responsibility that it requires.

It's a viscious circle. People afraid to rely on themselves tend toward socialism, which then uses its institutions (e.g. government schools) to inculcate and exacerbate that dependency.

Just look around you.An astute observation. But then, in a Constitutional Republic, the majority is (or was) not necessary to maintain that freedom. But perhaps I delude myself, because I need to believe.
A cynic is someone who sees things as they really are, rather than as we would wish them to be. Ambrose Bierce in THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY.But even cynics have belief systems. Besides, where would we be if we gave up the struggle for perfection because we knew that we could never reach it? I am a cynic, because, like you, I am not fooled about the nature of many people. Yet I struggle on for more freedom because I know that trying to make it "better," while not quite "perfection" is certainly more worthwhile than stasis or "worse."

nualle:
Electricity doesn't require a monopolistic provider feeding a huge grid.You are neglecting why "communism" failed. Every time there is any, and I do mean absolutely any, organization, there is the "free-rider" problem.

The problem with anarchism is that, what cooperation may exist will be extremely short-term due to the frequent "free-rider" problems brought on by the lack of the societal referee (government). Thus, it is a system given to much instability and extremely high transactional costs. Remember that there can't be much freedom without prosperity (the freedom from harsh toil, which allows for reflection about one's status) as well.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, does not deny the reason for the existence of the government. It requires government, matter of fact, but only as an impartial, minimalist referee to punish the rule-breakers.

Bahadur

[publius]

For libertarians with a sense of humor:
http://reason.com/0302/bagge2-03.jpg
(300k download)

To answer the topic question: no, there has never been a truly libertarian society, and if there ever is one, we won't know it, since you can't get more than 3 libertarians to agree on any set of 10 important issues.

For the thin-skinned who may find my post insulting, I'm not trying to be. Just being realistic. I've been an LP member since 1987.

[nualle]

Badahur, you make some good points.
The problem with anarchism is that, what cooperation may exist will be extremely short-term due to the frequent "free-rider" problems brought on by the lack of the societal referee (government).
Cart-before-horse. Threat of govt reprisal is an attempt to address the preexisting "free-rider" (cheater) problem. It is not the only possible way of addressing it. Lack of a govt does not "bring on" the problem.

I don't know where you're getting the "short-term" idea about anarchistic cooperation. Free people can cooperate together for as long as they both wish to.

Thus, it [being governmentless] is a system given to much instability and extremely high transactional costs.
The instability isn't necessary if the systems remain of human scale. As for high transactional costs... I wonder if the subsidies govts provide to some methods over others isn't skewing our perspective on those costs.

Remember that there can't be much freedom without prosperity (the freedom from harsh toil, which allows for reflection about one's status) as well.
Here is the rub. I agree unreservedly that freedom requires leisure. Any system that provides leisure to some by shunting their toil onto others is inherently unjust (and, depending on its rhetoric, most likely hypocritical as well). This inequity is made socially acceptable by reference to population density... we each simply know too many people to treat them all as humans.

This is one reason why anarchism (and, I would argue, any sort of justice) can only be realized on a small scale and requires adults personally committed to freedom.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, does not deny the reason for the existence of the government. It requires government, matter of fact, but only as an impartial, minimalist referee to punish the rule-breakers.
I don't mean to offend, but: this sort of statement makes me wonder how many Libertarians have thoroughly thought out the ramifications of individual freedom and responsibility.

What is the justification for taking that punishment out of the hands of the harmed person? If the State punishes, it is because it is the State that was harmed. But the State is not a person, to suffer harm.

The only valid reason to follow a rule is to avoid actually harming another real person. If you break a rule, and thus harm a person, it is that person whose right and responsibility it is to bring that to your attention and, as appropriate, require redress. The only role for other people, who aren't involved, is to witness the process to make sure the redress required isn't itself unjust.

Badahur, you brought up the "free-rider" problem against anarchism. I give you the "inevitable abuse" problem against government. As soon as redress is separated from harm by the intervention of a govt, the agents of govt gain the opportunity and temptation to become "free-riders," hiding and defending their privileges under color of law.

[Chipper]

As to the original questions:

Has a truly libertarian society ever existed?
That is, for a significant time and with a significant population? Does one exist now?


Lack of precedent does not negate success or insure failure.

The logical result of libertarian thinking is anarchy. Anarchy then, sets the standard of true freedom and liberty. It is the goal. It is the bullseye. It is, sadly, unattainable. It works and works well for individuals but, it will not work in a society. People want government. They wish to be relieved of certain responsibilities. They want assurances that they will not be victimized individually by other persons and collectively by other peoples. They want collective recognition amongst the other nations of the world. In America, government is so wanted that each and every person exists under at least three levels of government, county, state and federal. Those of us in urban areas can also add in city government and in some states, like Indiana, the township system of political division and governance is also included. Even in libertarian thinking, there still exists government which is a concession in recognition of the desire for government.

In all of this it becomes clear that people organize, authorize and institute governments to acheive their desired ends. The problem is that governments are force. They are the embodiment of coercion. The challenge then is to determine just how much government or force people should be subjected.

The American form of government is widely hailed as allowing the greatest amount of freedom and liberty within it's society. Yet, from the ratification of the constitution to this day government has sought and usually attained more power. This has come, typically, at the loss of our liberties.

As in any failed relationship, there is plenty of blame for all to share. Before this current relationship reaches it's conclusion, perhaps it is time to consider the future. Contemplate new forms of government that are more suited to what we want with heavier chains on the powers granted to government to avoid or delay a reiteration of what we endure now. We have thousands of years of western civilization to draw from as examples of what does work and what does not. We also have our past 227 years of American experience from which we can more clearly see what what works and what doesn't. If you haven't been there yet, I invite you to http://www.project-exodus.org to review what is being discussed, join up and add in your thoughts. If you've been there already and didn't agree, your reasoning would like to be heard. It's anti-federalist in nature but not strictly so as there are definite libertarian and anarchic twists.

Chipper

[Bahadur]

nualle:

Ah, someone who thinks!
Cart-before-horse. Threat of govt reprisal is an attempt to address the preexisting "free-rider" (cheater) problem. It is not the only possible way of addressing it. Lack of a govt does not "bring on" the problem.That may very well be true theoretically. Then again, the non-existence of an impartial referee may "invite" rule-breaking by temptation.
I don't know where you're getting the "short-term" idea about anarchistic cooperation. Free people can cooperate together for as long as they both wish to.What I mean is that IF the free-rider problem is endemic, people can only cooperate for a very short period of time UNTIL the appearance of a free rider, whose presence then alerts others to cease work (so as to ride free themselves), and therefore cooperation.
The instability isn't necessary if the systems remain of human scale.Please elaborate on "human scale."
As for high transactional costs... I wonder if the subsidies govts provide to some methods over others isn't skewing our perspective on those costs.I'd agree that the "government subsidy" is costly IF we have perfect information. Unfortunately, when information is neither free nor equally distributed, it becomes possible to engage in endemic cheating, which then creates a huge drag effect on the society as a whole UNLESS there is a refree (which admittedly adds to the net cost).
Here is the rub. I agree unreservedly that freedom requires leisure. Any system that provides leisure to some by shunting their toil onto others is inherently unjust (and, depending on its rhetoric, most likely hypocritical as well).First of all, technology can take much of the toil burden in an advanced industrialized society. Secondly, why would you say such a system is unjust? In a relatively free market (anarchist or libertarian), the market prices the value of work. If being a physician is desirable, it will generate a sufficient income as to provide the doctor with leisure. Everyone is free to study hard to get into med school and go through a grueling residence to become a neuro-surgeon.
This is one reason why anarchism (and, I would argue, any sort of justice) can only be realized on a small scale and requires adults personally committed to freedom.And what kind of a society would that be where humans only transact with each other in an extremely small scale?
I don't mean to offend, but: this sort of statement makes me wonder how many Libertarians have thoroughly thought out the ramifications of individual freedom and responsibility.Please elaborate.
What is the justification for taking that punishment out of the hands of the harmed person? If the State punishes, it is because it is the State that was harmed. But the State is not a person, to suffer harm.

The only valid reason to follow a rule is to avoid actually harming another real person. If you break a rule, and thus harm a person, it is that person whose right and responsibility it is to bring that to your attention and, as appropriate, require redress. The only role for other people, who aren't involved, is to witness the process to make sure the redress required isn't itself unjust.Ah, but without a theoretically impartial referee, how would one individual obtain redress from another who wronged him? How would the first individual obtain the coercive power necessary to obtain redress?

Under such a system, instead of competing by studying, working and making money, individuals must compete by acquiring and enhancing the means of coercion, which inevitably becomes violence. Such a system is likely to degenerate into one of tribal vengeance.
Badahur, you brought up the "free-rider" problem against anarchism. I give you the "inevitable abuse" problem against government. As soon as redress is separated from harm by the intervention of a govt, the agents of govt gain the opportunity and temptation to become "free-riders," hiding and defending their privileges under color of law.A very excellent point. There is a different set of problems with libertarianism (because it does require the presence of government). That is where checks & balances come into play. Simply put, the notion of anarchism vs. libertarianism is whether one wants a society in which one must become a judge, jury and executioner himself (or perish) or a society where people agree to a social contract and incur a cost (a minimal one in comparison in my analysis) to maintain fairplay.

Chipper:

Excellent points overall. As ideal communism is impossible, so is ideal anarchism with one hundred-percent liberty (and responsibility). The idea of libertarianism, in my view, is to have a social contract, i.e. the notion of government, AND to maximize liberty and responsibility (without, of course, reaching that 100%).

It is a difficult trick, which is why we haven't seen one yet.

[Chipper]

Bahadur,

The idea of libertarianism, in my view, is to have a social contract, i.e. the notion of government, AND to maximize liberty and responsibility (without, of course, reaching that 100%).

It is a difficult trick, which is why we haven't seen one yet.


Thanks for the "yet"! It leaves open the door of possibility.

I have serious reservations about the idea of a social contract. Who would negotiate it? Negotiation only occurs between equals. Beyond that, the weak are dictated to by the strong. Who would consent? Again, equals would be necessary for consent to occur, otherwise terms of agreement are imposed. Who would enforce? This is naturally a matter of force. Who would you trust to use force against you inthe event of contractual breach? What would be done if no agreement was reached? This could happen between equals and obviously no transaction would occur without a contract. If we(collectively as a people) institute a government of some form, why would we make it our equal? Would it not be to our advantage to keep it inherently weaker than us that we may dictate to the institution how it will function? Even under that scenario we have the challenges inherent in scale as noted by Herbert Spencer. Were we to have government as a result of contract it would be almost necessary to do so on a small scale such as a community, town, village or neighborhood.

If contract, of whatever sort it may be, is to be a pseudo or defacto form of government then virtually every relationship, be it between man and woman, customer and seller, customer and producer, customer and provider, parishoner and preacher, teacher and student, and the many, many others would of necessity be defined by the terms of the contract governing that relationship. Again, negotiation could only occur between equals in status, whether political, economic, social or other measures. Even so-called standard contracts for services and other relationships are generally written to protect the party offering the contract and they will consider no other terms. Not only that, there would be a great deal of expense involved in both money and time negotiating and meeting the various and sundry terms of the plethora of contracts to which we would be a party. Since there would be no government as we know it today this would certainly provide a lot of work for unemployed attorneys but how many of us will be able to afford to keep one on retainer to negotiate all of our affairs? Certainly the price for their services would be lowered and we would have more of our wealth to keep. Nevertheless, an attorney on retainer for all negotiations would represent a considerable expense.

The question of enforcement also gets a bit dicey. Though we may go before a free-market judiciary predetermined by the terms of the contract, compliance with judgment rendered would be difficult to enforce unless there existed an enforcer named in the terms of the contract. The only other alternative would be some type of a court-appointed enforcer. Then the limits of enforcement would also necessitate negotiation. Somehow, I just cannot imagine Joe Sixpak wanting to have a life this complicated. Just the time spent having an attorney explain even just the major points of all contracts would be extremely time-consuming.

Perhaps you have a different idea in mind of how the contractual society would play out? I'm no expert on a contract based society/government.

Chipper

[spartacus2002]

For anyone reading this who isn't read up on libertarian philosophy, in the context of this discussion Anarchy does NOT equal Chaos. Anarchy is merely lack of govt, with govt defined as ruling institution with legal monopoly on use of force and authority to coerce. Anarchy allows for cooperation thru respect for private property and the ability to undertake contractual obligations for economic trade and development.

Basically, anarchy gets the politics out of the way and allows folks to get down to the business of engaging in work and trade.

Just my $.02, to help frame the discussion.

[nualle]

Badahur: Thanks for the compliment. It's always a pleasure to discuss substance more than form.

You posit a libertarian govt as an "impartial referee." I submit that, since it can never be truly impartial, the whole of the argument falls at that point.

With your reference to "tribal vengeance," I think you're forgetting that the essence of anarchism isn't Hobbes's war of each against all... it is cooperation. The whole idea is that, at every point, each individual must remain free to choose with whom she will cooperate and toward what ends. (Which more or less applies spartacus2002's superb definition.)

As for how to deal with cheaters... yes, putting redress back into the hands of individuals is brutal (or can be). I see nothing wrong with this. If someone killed my wife and I endorsed the death penalty for the killer, I would be a hypocrite if I were then unwilling to execute the sentence upon him myself. The world can be a brutal place—I think human psychology would be healthier if more people acknowledged that and then got on with life.

So, in the absence of any "theoretically impartial referee," how would I justify that my killing him was different from his killing my wife? By taking the trouble first to announce publicly what harm was done me. This is one of many reasons why having a small, homogeneous population helps in running an anarchist group. People will tend to share values.

(It is conceivable that this method could develop into blood feud, but in an environment of equality before the law, I don't think it would very often. Blood feud generally happened between legally privileged individuals, who could afford to spend resources on matters of prestige. Actually, they had to, in order to maintain their privileged positions.)

A govt, by making some functions of society more comfortable, usurps the rights and liberties of individuals. As it does this, it also imposes obligations on those individuals—the costs you referred to. What it does not do is give one the choice to opt out of it. One cannot simply renounce one's citizenship and declare a new cooperative polity. Most times that's been tried, it's been bloodily crushed. What all of this means is that, once the govt is established, its sovereignty takes precedence over the self-sovereignty of its own citizens. That is unacceptable. It is unfree.

[Bahadur]

Chipper:
Perhaps you have a different idea in mind of how the contractual society would play out? I'm no expert on a contract based society/government.Indeed. I meant "contract" in "social contract" in social-cultural terms rather than economic-legal terms.
Negotiation only occurs between equals. Beyond that, the weak are dictated to by the strong.I see this premise to be incorrect. Negotiation surely does occur among un-equals. First of all, negotiation is often a process of clarification (of boundaries), and as such, occurs even when one side is dominant and the other submissive. Secondly, you must remember that a society is NOT binary. The strong often negotiate with the weak, because there is a tendency among the weak to simultaneously 1) accomodate the strong and 2) coalesce with other "weak" parties to balance the strong. This is an ideal situation for negotiation.

spartacus2002:
For anyone reading this who isn't read up on libertarian philosophy, in the context of this discussion Anarchy does NOT equal Chaos. Anarchy is merely lack of govt, with govt defined as ruling institution with legal monopoly on use of force and authority to coerce. Anarchy allows for cooperation thru respect for private property and the ability to undertake contractual obligations for economic trade and development.

Basically, anarchy gets the politics out of the way and allows folks to get down to the business of engaging in work and trade.I think this idea that government, the enforcer of rules, can simply disappear and yet still allow for stability while people go about "trading and developing" as if it still exists (only less intrusive) is naive. Please see my response to nualle below.

nualle:
You posit a libertarian govt as an "impartial referee." I submit that, since it can never be truly impartial, the whole of the argument falls at that point.It needs not be 100% impartial (first of all, that's impossible) for the system to work.
With your reference to "tribal vengeance," I think you're forgetting that the essence of anarchism isn't Hobbes's war of each against all... it is cooperation.That's what you would like... at the end. Unfortunately...
As for how to deal with cheaters... yes, putting redress back into the hands of individuals is brutal (or can be). I see nothing wrong with this. If someone killed my wife and I endorsed the death penalty for the killer, I would be a hypocrite if I were then unwilling to execute the sentence upon him myself.Not so. The government executing the killer is not acting for your behalf only - it is acting on behalf of all citizens, as killing (rule-breaking) harms the entire citizenry, not just you.
The world can be a brutal place—I think human psychology would be healthier if more people acknowledged that and then got on with life.Having lived and worked in a chaotic environment, I prefer the measure of security provided by the social contract than a completely anarchistic society where justice is completely subjective. There can be no freedom where brutality reigns free, which is why I do not believe in absolute freedom.
(It is conceivable that this method could develop into blood feud, but in an environment of equality before the law, I don't think it would very often. First of all, it is not conceivable. It will be.
So, in the absence of any "theoretically impartial referee," how would I justify that my killing him was different from his killing my wife? By taking the trouble first to announce publicly what harm was done me. This is one of many reasons why having a small, homogeneous population helps in running an anarchist group.Private justice almost always turns into blood feud in absence of a larger force "from above." Why? Because of the subjectivity in evaluating what harm was done to you (in the above scenario), there is no consensus on what punishment is appropriate between various individuals and groups. If you are seen to "over-punish" (as no doubt the advocates for the original killer will), the other side will try to exact its "justice" on you. And so on and so forth.
People will tend to share values.Such people congregating and dealing with other similar groups in absence of a larger government is called tribalism, which can be extremely brutal and economically inefficient.
Blood feud generally happened between legally privileged individuals, who could afford to spend resources on matters of prestige. Not so. The cost of violence is very, very low in most societies. Furthermore, even if your premise is true, the less privileged can always (as it did in human history) appeal to more privileged sponsors to enact "justice" on his behalf. In fact, this is how feudalism, mafia, and many other social organizations developed in part - as a mechanism for private justice.

[bad_dad_brad]

I think that certain states in the U.S. would approximate the "feel" of a libertarian society. Like Montana for instance. Of course, authority is still there, they just kind of ignore those western folks, especially those in rural areas.

[nualle]

Badahur, you wrote:
[snip] the less privileged can always (as it did in human history) appeal to more privileged sponsors to enact "justice" on his behalf. In fact, this is how feudalism, mafia, and many other social organizations developed in part - as a mechanism for private justice.
You describe here, as you say, feudalism. But we were discussing the possibilities of "libertarian society."

I think libertarian society, which I logically extended to anarchist society, is possible but that it would require a number of distinct circumstances. I admit that those circumstances—one of which is that all the adults involved are thinking people who place a premium value on indivudual freedom (their own and others')— set the bar pretty high, but not inconceivably high.

You seem consistently to make reference to people acting from a position of their own inherent privilege over others (e.g., that the family of a murderer might consider that death constitutes overpunishment presupposes that the murderer had a greater right to life than did his victim—a privilege in that regard relative to her). IMO, so long as people go through life believing themselves rightly privileged over other people, there is no society that can suffice to impose justice on them.

Freedom starts and ends with individuals. Individuals committed to freedom, who also want society, find themselves most free in anarchistic society.

[Bahadur]

nualle:
Badahur, you wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip] the less privileged can always (as it did in human history) appeal to more privileged sponsors to enact "justice" on his behalf. In fact, this is how feudalism, mafia, and many other social organizations developed in part - as a mechanism for private justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You describe here, as you say, feudalism. But we were discussing the possibilities of "libertarian society."Actually, I was discussing what happens when "justice" is privatized in an anarchic society per your assertion earlier. Such a society where the central government disappears often turns into a tribal or feudal society.
You seem consistently to make reference to people acting from a position of their own inherent privilege over others (e.g., that the family of a murderer might consider that death constitutes overpunishment presupposes that the murderer had a greater right to life than did his victim—a privilege in that regard relative to her).Ah, but we are not discussing "privilege," but of "perception." What do I mean? Let's say this killer had a spouse and 5 little children while your dead wife "only" had you. The killer's extended family may contend that you deprived 6 people of a bread earner, while the original killer did so for only 1 person. Or, let's say the killer of your wife deprived you and your child of a parent. So you kill him. Yet, in the process you deprive his wife and child of a parent. So, his wrong was avenged by your action. In turn, your wrong then "must be avenged" by the child of the original killer.

Do I believe this line of logic? No, I do not. But let's now assume that the circumstances aren't as clear. For example, the original killer now claims that your wife was about to hurt one of his children, so he acted in defense of his family. In absence of a relatively impartial prosecutor (government acting on behalf of all), who would determine the truthfulness of the circumstances? If you seek private redress by killing him, you are acting as your own judge, jury and executioner. Who is to say, then, the killer's son is unjust when he kills you for a "wrongful slaying" of his father?

In all these scenarios, the end result is a blood feud, which is the inevitable result of "private justice."
Freedom starts and ends with individuals.True enough.
Individuals committed to freedom, who also want society, find themselves most free in anarchistic society.Maybe for a little while. But if "private justice" is a feature of your anarchistic society, people won't be very free for long as blood feuds result.

[nualle]

Such a society where the central government disappears often turns into a tribal or feudal society.

[snip] if "private justice" is a feature of your anarchistic society, people won't be very free for long as blood feuds result.
In the first statement, you say "often," but in the second, you assume "must necessarily." There's huge difference. In that difference lies the possiblity for anarchistic society to work.


The killer's extended family may contend that you deprived 6 people of a bread earner, while the original killer did so for only 1 person.
Specious argument... In murdering, the guy did that himself.


[snip] the original killer now claims that your wife was about to hurt one of his children, so he acted in defense of his family.
If he has this defense, I must hear it and give it due weight. He and his family have as much right to life as do me and mine. If the defensive-killing argument has merit, I cannot in good conscience endorse his death as justice.

This amount of self-control is precisely what is required of a fundamental commitment to freedom (mine and others'). It's probably part of why anarchism will never be universal. I've never said it would be. But those who want to live free should be left alone to try it.


In absence of a relatively impartial prosecutor (government acting on behalf of all), who would determine the truthfulness of the circumstances?
Because the impartiality is fictitious, so is the "truthfulness" it settles on. "Justice" from any govt (and in most non-govt situations) means something like: the version of events most expedient to the resumption of business-as-usual.

Justice does not equal expediency. If it's expediency you want, call it that.

Edited to add:
I do believe expediency has its place and its uses (as when justice is either not at issue or is physically unattainable). But I have it as an intuited first principle that any society that consistently prefers expediency to justice is abusive of individuals' rights.

[Bahadur]

nualle:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such a society where the central government disappears often turns into a tribal or feudal society.

[snip] if "private justice" is a feature of your anarchistic society, people won't be very free for long as blood feuds result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the first statement, you say "often," but in the second, you assume "must necessarily." There's huge difference. In that difference lies the possiblity for anarchistic society to work.That's because these are two different conditions. In the first case, I say "often," because there can be other forms of de-centralized society OR a return to another central government.

In the second case, yes, indeed I am stating that your anarchistic society (with private justice) WILL result in blood feuds.
If he has this defense, I must hear it and give it due weight. He and his family have as much right to life as do me and mine. If the defensive-killing argument has merit, I cannot in good conscience endorse his death as justice.

This amount of self-control is precisely what is required of a fundamental commitment to freedom (mine and others').Ah, but you assume that YOU will have PERFECT information. That's exactly the problem EVEN IF everyone has perfect self-control and commitment. The killer had imperfect information (not knowing exactly what your wife intended in the example) and you have imperfect information (whether the killer's version is actually the truth, his perception of the truth or simply lying).
It's probably part of why anarchism will never be universal.And it's not the only reason.
Because the impartiality is fictitious, so is the "truthfulness" it settles on.No, impartiality is NOT fictitious. There can NEVER be 100% impartiality, I concur. But there can be something close to it (obviously the closer the better). Having a third party in resolving a two-party conflict will increase the likelihood of greater impartiality than a system left to the two in the conflict.

Libertarianism (at least my version of it) is not utopian in that it acknowledges the impossibility of perfection. Your anarchist utopia requires perfection and is therefore impossible.

[BigG]

Thanks for all the detailed discourse. I've learned a lot from keeping up with this thread! I don't want to get into the blow by blow of the various points but offer the observation that expecting people to act grown up and play nice is a little far fetched. There has to be an impartial 3rd party to mete out justice. This insures everybody is playing by the same "rules."

Example: Two or more people may view a "crime" as different levels of seriousness or as no crime at all. What could be a small territorial dispute (hey get off my property) can escalate into a bloodletting. Similar with a "love" triangle. Cannot expect rationality from essentially emotion driven individuals. Sorry, these facts just get in the way of the best intentions! :eek:

[nualle]

Badahur: I concede the need for a third party, in the absence of perfect information, to approach justice.

I cannot concede that a government that 1) coerces compliance with its decisions and 2) makes itself an interested party (usually the only interested party, reducing the victim to a mere witness) in the redress-of-crime process can be, or even approach being, impartial in that process.

[BigG]

Hi Nualle (again!) :)

I cannot concede that a government that 1) coerces compliance with its decisions and 2) makes itself an interested party (usually the only interested party, reducing the victim to a mere witness) in the redress ...

Agree, but "in for a penny, in for a pound," is typically the 800 lb. gorilla that gomt, any gomt tries to become once it realizes that its perpetuation (self preservation, or even self-interest) is more important than justice. :eek:

[Bahadur]

nualle:
Badahur: I concede the need for a third party, in the absence of perfect information, to approach justice.My thanks for your graciousness.
I cannot concede that a government that 1) coerces compliance with its decisions and 2) makes itself an interested party (usually the only interested party, reducing the victim to a mere witness) in the redress-of-crime process can be, or even approach being, impartial in that process.The assumption behind this statement is that the government is an "external" entity. But I argue that it is not. All the citizens are represented by the government (or society). The victim is not just the individual who was "directly" harmed. It is also the entire society of people who experienced rule-breaking (murder in this example), which if unchecked will harm them all ("back to the blood feuds"). The "coercion" you speak of is not from a third party, it is from the entirety of the society.

[Chipper]

Badahur,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you have a different idea in mind of how the contractual society would play out? I'm no expert on a contract based society/government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. I meant "contract" in "social contract" in social-cultural terms rather than economic-legal terms.


Thanks for the clarification. In a re-review of the various social contract theories the two main questions that remain unresolved in any useful sense are:
1) what constitutes political obligation and
2) can a contract exist without explicit consent of either party

I think both of these lie at the root of the discussion between you and nualle.

What we see in America today is best characterized by both the Hobbesian theory and the Lockean theory. A strange mixture indeed. When we drill to the base of the problems we encounter with government it is seen that there is no clear understanding of what constitutes political obligation. In both the above mentioned theories, the benefits derived from a government such as roads, military defense, the provision of justice and so on, are claimed to be the basis of justifying obligation to the government that provides these. In both of these theories, this obligation is predicated on heritage (I was born here, therefore I am obligated) and/or conquest in the case of Hobbes. Either is truly a poor basis for obligation. This imposed obligation also negates the necessity of explicit consent as obligation is implied and imposed at birth or at the time of the conquerors choosing. If the obligation is imposed rather than accepted by consent, how can this relationship be defined as a contract? A social contract is an unworkable and illegitimate concept unless some provision is made for the individual to either give or withold his consent.

Chipper

[Matt Wallis]

I apologize that I haven't read through this whole thread. So this may have already been responded to. But I just ahd to respond to this... (By Big G, I think)

I DO believe in the Bible and it teaches that human govts at their very best are essentially evil.

Uh, nope. Try reading Romans 13:1-10. Kind of teaches that gov't is a good gift of God (at its best).

Matt

[nualle]

Badahur, you said:
All the citizens are represented by the government (or society).
You've accused me of utopianism. If there is a utopian statement, I think this is it. This is the legal fiction underlying the claimed legitimacy of many of today's governments. Its truth in fact is not in evidence.

The victim is not just the individual who was "directly" harmed. It is also the entire society of people who experienced rule-breaking (murder in this example), which if unchecked will harm them all ("back to the blood feuds"). The "coercion" you speak of is not from a third party, it is from the entirety of the society.
This elevates rule-breaking above actual harm. There is, then, nothing to keep a government from instituting rules that address no actual harm, then increasing their social control by enforcing those rules.

If you say "because the government represents the people, and they wouldn't allow it," I refer you back to my response above... and to the War on (Some) Drugs.

[Bahadur]

Chipper:
In both the above mentioned theories, the benefits derived from a government such as roads, military defense, the provision of justice and so on, are claimed to be the basis of justifying obligation to the government that provides these. In both of these theories, this obligation is predicated on heritage (I was born here, therefore I am obligated) and/or conquest in the case of Hobbes. Either is truly a poor basis for obligation.That's what's great about the US. One can acquire the obligation (and the rights) by either being born or immigrating. Furthermore, for those who wish to renounce the citizenship, they can simply do so.

nualle:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the citizens are represented by the government (or society).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've accused me of utopianism. If there is a utopian statement, I think this is it. This is the legal fiction underlying the claimed legitimacy of many of today's governments. Its truth in fact is not in evidence.It is NOT utopian. When one travels overseas and catches oneself in a bind, one quickly learns about representation by the government. The confusion rises from the fact that some people want selective representation, namely, they claim the mandate of universal representation for all when their ideas are implemented by the government, but cry misrepresentation when they are not.
This elevates rule-breaking above actual harm.Rule-breaking is actual harm. And it's not "above." It *comensurates* with severity of the rule-breaking (what you call "actual harm"). For example, murder and theft are both rule-breaking, but are not treated the same. One has a more grave impact on the society as a whole and the individual victim than the other, and henced treated more harshly.
There is, then, nothing to keep a government from instituting rules that address no actual harm, then increasing their social control by enforcing those rules.Sure there are. For one thing, the government is elected by the people. For another, government is not monolithic - checks and balances.
If you say "because the government represents the people, and they wouldn't allow it," I refer you back to my response above... and to the War on (Some) Drugs.Well, the so-called War on Drugs is anti-libertarian in principle. Remember that (at least my version of) libertarianism isn't a utopian notion of perfect rights and no government. It is a working solution of the most rights possible and the most minimal government possible.

[bad_dad_brad]

Make your own state:

Check out:

http://www.freestateproject.org/

They want to move a bunch of libertarians to a small conservative state (like Wyoming) take it over politically, and then secede from the Federal government.

It's a plan.

[Ian]

Badahur,

Furthermore, for those who wish to renounce the citizenship, they can simply do so.
Really? You can renounce it all you want, but the Fed and State are still going to treat you any differently. They'll still search you at airports and confiscate your money, among other things.

If a person owns the land they live on, and decides to renounce their citizenship, they should be left alone, exempt from both the priveliges and duties of that citizenship. No group of people have any right whatsoever to intrude into life of a non-consenting individual (assuming the individual has not harmed another person, in which case that victimized person would have a right to restitution).

The only just government - that is, the only government which can exist without necessarily and flagrantly violating human rights - is one based on the actual consent of its citizens. This situation is synonymous with anarchy, because the government is denied arbitrary authority.

Rule-breaking is actual harm.
A rule has no weight simply because it is a "rule". The weight of a rule is defined by the harm (or lack thereof) caused by violating it. I (or, say, Congress) could proclaim a rule prohibiting the ownership of Volvos, but I (or Congress) cannot justly enforce that rule, as no harm comes of breaking it. The principle is upheld through the legal doctrine that an unconstitutional law is null and void from moment of passage, and may be violated with impunity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is, then, nothing to keep a government from instituting rules that address no actual harm, then increasing their social control by enforcing those rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure there are. For one thing, the government is elected by the people. For another, government is not monolithic - checks and balances.
To be exact, government is chosen by a majority of the people, not the whole people. There is no actual check against the majority using the government to grieviously violate the rights of any given minority (like machinegun owners, for example). Furthermore, the government IS monolithic - no branch has a motive to curtail the power of any other branch. The Supreme Court is the worst example of this - the Court is appointed by the other branches, can only be overruled by Constitutional Amendment (an action of the legislative branch), and serves a life term. It has only the most tenuous tie to the will of the people, and only the will of the majority of the people at that. The practical result of our "system of checks and balances" has been the concentration of power in the hands of the Federal government, for all the branches have a vested interest in usurping powers from the States and citizens.

[BigG]

Matt Wallis: Read the book of Samuel where the Israelites were clamoring for a king. God gave Samuel the straight skinny on human govts right there. The example you cited from Romans shows that God suffers a lot of things. Because he suffers human govts does not mean he endorses them. Remember the part about "they do not bear the sword in vain?" that means God is telling them if you get out of line they (the govt) will kill you.

[Bahadur]

Ian:
Really? You can renounce it all you want, but the Fed and State are still going to treat you any differently. They'll still search you at airports and confiscate your money, among other things.Nope. If you do not derive income in the US or own property and live elsewhere after renouncing the citizenship, you are no longer under the jurisdiction of the US government.
If a person owns the land they live on, and decides to renounce their citizenship, they should be left alone, exempt from both the priveliges and duties of that citizenship.Not so. You are free riding. It's your CHOICE to live where you do - that choice entails responsibilities like paying for common goods like national defense. You can't continue to enjoy the benefits, but shirk responsibilities by "simply" renouncing. You'd also have to shed all benefits (which would entail, in all probability, moving).
A rule has no weight simply because it is a "rule". The weight of a rule is defined by the harm (or lack thereof) caused by violating it. I (or, say, Congress) could proclaim a rule prohibiting the ownership of Volvos, but I (or Congress) cannot justly enforce that rule, as no harm comes of breaking it. The principle is upheld through the legal doctrine that an unconstitutional law is null and void from moment of passage, and may be violated with impunity.I agree. But once the social contract is reached, rule-breaking does become an actual harm, because it retards "fair play" and harms those who "play fair."
There is no actual check against the majority using the government to grieviously violate the rights of any given minority (like machinegun owners, for example).That's what a contitutional republic is all about, as opposed to a "pure" democracy. I agree we're not achieving the full potential of a "libertarian" constitutional republic. But what's that got to do with whether anarchism or libertarianism is more practical in real life? We both agree that the current status quo is not to our liking.

BTW, while by no means perfect, I'd take the US system over that of another country any day. The best possible in real life beats perfect fantasy any day.
Furthermore, the government IS monolithic - no branch has a motive to curtail the power of any other branch.The federal government is not monolithic. The different branches have opposed each other numerous times. Furthermore, there are state and local governments. Anyone who has worked "inside" the government really knows just how un-monolithic it really is.

[Matt Wallis]

Big G,

I hate to hijack this thread, especially to a non-legal/political topic, so feel free to PM or email me at first_brother@yahoo.com.

However, to respond briefly, I agree about the whole King for Israel thing. But that was a completely different situation. Read Rm 13 again. It doesn't say God tolerates Gov't. It says he instituted it. It calls gov't an institute or ordinance of God. Why would God institute something that is inherently bad? Answer: He wouldn't.

Although as an aside, gov't is needed only becuase there is sin and evil in the world. That much we can probably agree on.

Matt

[nualle]

But once the social contract is reached, rule-breaking does become an actual harm, because it retards "fair play" and harms those who "play fair."
This is true only if the content of the social contract is so minimal as to contain nothing more than the Non-Aggression Principle. If so, then your libertarians and my anarchists are beginning in the same spot. (Except that my anarchists don't need the contract, because they each individually assent to the NAP, hold themselves to that minimum standard of conduct, and understand another's breach of it to constitute redressable harm.)

If the social contract you refer to contains any content beyond the NAP, then your libertarians who assent to it lose liberties by each additional provision. How many liberties must they consent to lose before they can no longer be considered to be libertarians?

[Bahadur]

nualle:
This is true only if the content of the social contract is so minimal as to contain nothing more than the Non-Aggression Principle. If so, then your libertarians and my anarchists are beginning in the same spot. (Except that my anarchists don't need the contract, because they each individually assent to the NAP, hold themselves to that minimum standard of conduct, and understand another's breach of it to constitute redressable harm.)Well, not quite "same" because of the "private justice" issue where there is no collective enforcement under your version of anarchism (which thus encourages rule-breaking). I again refer the matter to the lack of perfect information.
If the social contract you refer to contains any content beyond the NAP, then your libertarians who assent to it lose liberties by each additional provision. How many liberties must they consent to lose before they can no longer be considered to be libertarians?That's a good question. There is, IMO, no cut and dry answer. It would have to depend on the cultural-historical circumstances of the society (that's the "reality" part of the lack of perfection in my libertarianism).