Libertarian Solutions I'd Like to Understand

budney said:

(Note: "Anarcho-capitalist" and "anarchist" are not the same thing. Most "anarchists" are not libertarian--they're socialist.)

Click to expand...

I think this suffers from the same false dichotomy as the folks who claim, "but doing things the way Libertarian supporter X suggests wouldn't be good."

My problem with anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists and various other flavors is that I don't understand what they're suggesting. I think they're attempting to change their audience's ideology rather than state definitively what the nature of society under anarchism would be.

If you eliminate the state's force monopoly, no one person can dictate -- or predict -- the type of anarchism that arises. That will depend on the social and philosophical structure of individual communities. NYC might turn into a cesspit of anarcho-socialism, while smaller or more conservative-minded communities might end up closer to anarcho-capitalism. And it seems to me that capitalism would reign in interactions between communities, because social bonds between more than a few towns/cities are weak at best and could never support a socially-minded meta-community of communities.

But that's just a guess. If it turns out that people are generally capitalistic-minded cutthroats everywhere, even NYC will turn into an anarcho-capitalist community.

I think they're attempting to change their audience's ideology rather than state definitively what the nature of society under anarchism would be.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the beginning of change...?

Sure... I'm not saying discussion of various ideologies is bad. My problem is when those discussions are cloaked in the label of anarchism and seem to be preaching the truth of how anarchism will operate, when it seems clear that nobody really knows.

I have a feeling many "anarchists" would call for a new government to enforce their particular ideology if it turned out that that ideology did not naturally dominate. If communities cannot sustain themselves through voluntary socialism, the anarcho-socialists would probably call for traditional (government-enforced) socialism, even though that doesn't really work either.

Even some anarcho-capitalists might reject anarchism if communities do end up functioning through voluntary socialism, because that would reduce demand for certain capitalistic pursuits which might be more lucrative under enforced capitalism (maybe capitalism could be enforced by having a smallish government that banned transfer of goods or services in exchange for goodwill, or even anything other than cash -- a government-provided numeraire).

In my understanding, libertarianism does not mean no government--which is a strong implication I'm getting from some of you. It means a strictly defined role for government based on libertarian principles. You still have three branches of government, armed forces for national defense, and law enforcement agencies. Laws protect individuals from criminal actions by other individuals--obvious things like rape, theft, assault, homicide, etc. You also have laws against fraud, and the like--non-violent crimes against others. These things are enforced and adjudicated pretty much as they are now. Cops still need to have police powers and be able to apprehend suspects and bring them to justice. The taxes needed to fund these activities can be worked out. For example, if one wants to have a contract protected by the legal system, one might buy a "tax stamp" or its digital equivalent to ensure enforcement of the contract in event of disputes. The amount of the tax could be based on the money value of the contract, varying depending on whether it is a contract to re-roof your house or buyout of a mega-corporation. Roads and highways can be funded by direct or indirect user fees. Toll highways are a perfect example. Fuel taxes are another way that common roads can be maintained. The more you use the roads, the more fuel and taxes you'll pay.

And so on. The important point is don't sweat the details. These things will work themselves out as (if) we can gradually wean ourselves away from the big, over-encompassing role of government.

K

Kentak
well said, also the various states can still tax etc. It's just about getting the federal government back inside it's constitutional boundaries.

You guys are worried about roads, I'm worried about where all the money I pay in fuel taxes goes?? It's upwards of 35 cents a gallon here in Pa last I was aware, could be more now, I'm sure it ain't less.

Kentak, some people call themselves "libertarians" meaning simply that they think folks should have a bit more liberty than they do now. Walter Block defines "plumb-line libertarianism" by the conviction that nobody may initiate aggression against others--in other words, everyone should be required to "keep his mitts to himself." Many, probably most, "plumb-line libertarians" believe in government as a means of protecting our rights by punishing aggressors.

What makes some of us, including Block, go one step further and call ourselves "anarcho-capitalists," is simply that we take non-aggression to its absolute conclusion, and observe that collecting taxes is an act of force. If you can't collect taxes, government evaporates.

Note that this puts us in a bit of a false light, though, because we believe that an anarcho-capitalist society would have every bit as much law and order as society today. In fact, more so. To give a trivial example: cops would be allowed to use force against aggressive criminals. There would be no victimless crimes on the books, so they couldn't hassle a drunk for being drunk, or a stoner for being stoned, or a hooker for hooking--but they can hassle all of the above for trespassing. And since there's no such thing as public property under anarcho-capitalism, they're always trespassing unless they own the place or have the owner's permission. Cops would therefore be able to sweep hookers and dealers off the streets, but the only legitimate charge would be trespassing (plus any other aggressive crimes such as assault that they might commit). You'd be amazed how much of what we associate with society would still exist under anarcho-capitalism. The crucial difference is that nobody would have the power, for example, to conduct commando-raids on someone else's private property (no matter WHAT was written on his body armor in big white letters).

tyme, there's no false dichotomy. "Anarchist" is an extremely vague word, and includes everyone who would dismantle government. The vast majority of "anarchists" don't just want "no government." They're usually socialists or nihilists, or both. They want chaos and mob rule--and they have no respect whatsoever for private property. But overall, "anarchist" is such a vague term as to be meaningless.

"Anarcho-capitalist," on the other hand, is a very specific term. It refers to those who believe it is always a crime to initiate force against anyone else's person or property--including the "force" involved in collecting taxes. We absolutely respect private property, and consider the property owner to have the right to defend his person and property with lethal force if necessary. (The moral right, that is. One may not always do so legally in the US today.) That's the "anarcho" part. The "capitalist" part reflects the belief that voluntary exchanges, AKA "the free market," are the core of civilization. We believe in cooperation and voluntarism, but not the mushy altruistic sort that communists believe in: we believe in good old-fashioned horse trading.

To an anarcho-capitalist, the world is basically a continuum between anarcho-capitalism and statism, where any sort of force constitutes "statism." (If it sounds like the Mafia and the Federal Government are both "the state" in that viewpoint, you're right. But we usually call government "the mob," rather than calling the Mob "government." ) The anarcho-capitalist believes that man became civilized when he invented markets. The statist believes that man became civilized when he invented government. Most people fall somewhere in between those two extremes, but lean on the statist end.


--Len.

"Anarcho-capitalist," on the other hand, is a very specific term. It refers to those who believe it is always a crime to initiate force against anyone else's person or property--including the "force" involved in collecting taxes.

Click to expand...

I don't think "crime" is a valid concept under anarchism. There is only what your subscription to a law enforcement/insurance collective offers, vs what someone else's offers, in the way of protection and insurance against things you or they don't want to happen. You can consider something an execution-worthy offense to you or your property, but "crime" is no longer a valid concept because there's no force monopoly so there's no single judge of what is or isn't a crime.

Basically, I question your definition of anarcho-capitalism. In my mind, it's the belief that anarchy will lead to capitalism dominating all exchanges of goods and services.

My original point was simply that you can't force anarchy to turn out one particular way. You can't support a particular flavor of anarchy. Either you support anarchy, and are willing to accept whatever the social and economic consequences of anarchy end up being, or you subscribe to an ideology, and merely hope that anarchy gets you there... but if it doesn't... well, then maybe anarchy isn't such a good idea.

tyme said:

My original point was simply that you can't force anarchy to turn out one particular way.

Click to expand...

Doesn't anyone listen to me? That's why you slowly move toward that direction, and after a few generations when people have gotten used to the idea of a market-directed life, personal responsibility, and accountability among one's peers, then you decide if the world is ready for anarcho-capitalism or whatever.

You could say the same thing about moving people toward socialism, but the fundamental idea the ACs are trying to present is that freedom and markets will naturally build people up, whereas socialism/communism/whatever will always corrupt.

Despite that, I don't think life would be perfect in any system. There will still be disagreements, but at least they won't be resolved through the "moral wrong" of government force. I've always thought the ultra-libertarians realize nothing is perfect, but individuals shouldn't be allowed to call on the government to help themselves out, so they just have to tough some things out and deal with it. Does that make any sense? In other words, simpletons can bring up little worries and concerns in a million Internet threads, but that still doesn't mean they should be "allowed" to force their will through government. And since anarcho-capitalism would be better overall, you might as well go with that.

But not overnight.

In other words, simpletons can bring up little worries and concerns in a million Internet threads, but that still doesn't mean they should be "allowed" to force their will through government.

Click to expand...

Could you possibly be referring to some "gun boards"

How did this go from Libertarian to Anarchism? As I remember the OP was Libertarian Solutions, as in liberty.
Do you equate liberty with anarchy? I do not.

Pcosmar, my answers are the libertarian answers. The only difference is who signs the cops' paychecks. There's a gnat's whisker of difference between the libertarian and the anarcho-capitalist answers to these questions.

BigG, no hijack at all. As I just mentioned, my answers are the libertarian answers, except for who signs the cops paychecks. It's true that there are more than one "libertarian answer," but I assume you knew that when you asked your original questions?

tyme, you can't just make up your own meaning for "anarcho-capitalist." We're a specific group of people who made up the term to describe ourselves, and we think what we think (some of which I've told you in this thread). We're particularly hard-core libertarians, and we believe that nobody should be using force on anybody else, except in self-defense. We don't believe in chaos, or nihilism, or mob rule, or the law of the jungle.

--Len.

Either you support anarchy, and are willing to accept whatever the social and economic consequences of anarchy end up being, or you subscribe to an ideology, and merely hope that anarchy gets you there... but if it doesn't... well, then maybe anarchy isn't such a good idea.

Click to expand...

Heinlein (paraphrased): "I support the free market not because it is more efficient, but because it is free." I wholeheartedly believe that life would be better, except for those who want to live off of others, but if it isn't I'm willing to deal with that.

To the OP, it sounds like you're describing anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarianism still has a central government that has a purpose. If someone commits a crime, he or she should pay for it--and that is enforced by the government. Roads would still be paved. I don't think any Libertarian is trying to argue that we should all be responsible for paving the street in front of our houses.

The point of Libertarianism is to LIMIT government--not eradicate it. What you seem to have described is anarchy with an eye-for-an-eye situation.

Do you think your taxes should be lower, or are you OK with paying 1/3 of your hard-earned paycheck to support crack dealers on welfare who make no attempt to better themselves and drive corvettes while not declaring their income and collecting from the taxpayers all the while?

Do you agree with all the new committees and subcommittees that are formed every day and meet for months and do nothing? How fast did we get the 9/11 commission report? Do you believe there should be less red tape in the government?

Do you believe that you should be able to do whatever you want in your own home as long as you're not hurting someone else?

Do you believe socialized medicine will be better than privatized medicine (i.e. do you like the VA health system, medicare, and medicaid)? Do you believe Michael Moore hit the nail on the head with his movies?

Ask yourself these types of questions. If you find you don't think the government can run your life, your health, your money, etc. better than you can, then you may just be leaning toward Libertarianism. That's not to say the government has no role, but it's role should be limited.

In the end, what you're asking is, "How can personal responsibility be a governing force?". The answer is, currently, it can't. I have often said that, in order to implement my "ideal" form of government (which is quite Libertarian, I assure you), I would have to have a veritable dictatorship (which I <i>do not</i> approve of in any way, shape or form) for several generations. Why? Because a truly Libertarian form of government requires a certain public mindset. People must realize their personal responsibilities and act accordingly. They must pass that mindset onto their children, and have their children do the same. Also to answer your question, you asked "how would you punish someone for offending another person?" the answer is, it depends on the offense. If it is merely a verbal offense (say he called him a bloated money-grubbing toady or something), then the offender would get no punishment, it would be up to the offendee to deal with it, and by deal with it, I <i>do not</i> mean shoot the offender. If it is an actual criminal offense, well then, that would be dealt according to the law, which would be whatever it would be in that area.

BigG said:

I sounds like you believe in transferring govt force to insurance companies, Miko. How is that better than it is now? I can't see much improvement.

Click to expand...

No offence, but you sound like your very language is incapable of expressing any "unapproved" thought - like in an Orwellian fantasy.
Again, it was not intended as a slur but as something you might pay attention to - if one can't think it terms of reality, what chance can have or understanding it?

I am certainly not advocating "transferring" anything to anyone - the very suggestion that I would advocate coersion is offensive to me.
I am saying that as government is removed from imposing its monopolistic "services" on us, individuals and companies will step in to provide the services that are demanded at the price customers are willing to pay. People will enter into an agreement with whatever agent/provider they feel comfortable.

The difference is that people will not be coerced in paying for services the price, scope and quality of which they are not free to approve or reject.


Insurance companies providing protection against aggression, like they do now against other dangers, is just one potential scenario that seems likely to spontaneously arise. There are many others - that are merely speculations. Future is unknowable, because people constantly come up with solutions that nobody else has forseen.
Say, a guy owns a city - or a piece of land that he develops into a city, where he acts as a king. Every resident is a renter - in a contractual relation with a "king" with regard to acceptable behavior, mutual responcibilities and conflict resolution. How about that?

deadin said:

Put the insurance companies in charge? I worked for an insurance company for 20 years and that is a chilling thought. They are only interested in profit on the bottom line for their shareholders.

Click to expand...

So? You worked for 20 years for a government-sanctioned cartel engaged in government-mandated socialist wealth-redistribuition schemes that screwed up the customers because they were protected from competition by the government.
And now you are reborn and repentant and think we need even more government?

BigG said:

With all due respect, I want to hear actual possible solutions to problems that crop up every day. Not appeals to Ludwig Von Mises, etc. who only philosophize but have never actually tried any of their suggestions.

Click to expand...

LvM was an economist, not an Anarcho-Capitalist, at least for the most of his life.
If you want the historical examples of free people cooperating for mutual security, there are plenty of such examples. The closest to us is the 150 years of Colonial history and a few decades of the settlement of the west in late 19th century - where government rule was purely nominal and yet the society was characterised by very low levels fo violence (even compared to the government-dominated cities of those times, let alone today's society).

As for government experiments - fiat money, imperialism, democracy? Sow hat if they have been tried many times over millenia? They have consistently and disasterously failed every time.

If you can't explain something in simple English, it will never fly politically, no matter how clever you think it is.

Click to expand...

You seem to believe that the problem of libertarians is that most people lack education - rather than being inherently evil.
You are wrong. Plenty of people are fine with aggressing against those who have not aggressed against others - in order to take away their property or coerce them into doing/not doing something - if they feel they might benefit.
Most people are not slaves out of ignorance - they are willing slaves/tyrants.

Realistic libertarian solution is not conversion of the society - it's seccession from unjust and crumbling society and developing a free society with like-minded people.

Kentak said:

In my understanding, libertarianism does not mean no government--which is a strong implication I'm getting from some of you. It means a strictly defined role for government based on libertarian principles.

Click to expand...

Yes - so called "minarchist" position. It's a delusion based on a logical contradiction. A government is a monopoly on power. Every monopoly tends to grow - it's an economic law or nature.
Competition in a free society ensures that defects are corrected. Free people make choices.
Once a monopoly on power and conflict resolution is established, an individual is not free to choose what services and at what costs he is willing to purchase. Once you become a slave, you cannot ensure your master will always be benevolent - and the government becomes a strong magnet for evil people who want to exploit it's monopoly powers.

There is no end what people need "protecting" against - from criminals to cheap improts to unlicensed flower-arrangers. The more such protection costs, the better for the government.

budney said:

"Anarchist" is an extremely vague word, and includes everyone who would dismantle government.

Click to expand...

Not true. Every "anarchist" design includes an extremely totalitarian government that would be needed to ensure that institution of property, division of labor, "exploitation", family or money does not arise again.

miko

Pure Libertarianism, like pure Communism can be made to sound like a wonderful answer to all our problems. (You know, from each what they can give, to each what they require.) Both are a great exercise in political debate, but are unworkable because you are dealing with individuals that have different views and goals. I tend to agree with Nolo, in that until you can get everybody in lock-step and thinking alike, it won't work. Our current form of government would benefit from the same blind obedience that would be required to make any of the others work.
(Or do we just "get rid" of those who don't go along?)

Pure Libertarianism, like pure Communism can be made to sound like a wonderful answer to all our problems.

Click to expand...

I don't know any libertarians OR anarcho-capitalists who suggest that liberty equals utopia. We freely agree that there will be lots of problems; we merely point out that there are lots of problems NOW. So we don't have to achieve utopia. We just have to achieve something no worse than we have today, but freer. That's not too hard to do.

Unlike communism, capitalist libertarians take humans as they really are. We don't need a new "libertarian man" the way they need the new "socialist man." We just need you to be selfish enough to want stuff, and we need most of the people to go after it without violence most of the time. That's what people are already like today.

Government basically turns honest men into robbers by absolving them of responsibility. Most of us would accept a fat check from a man in a black suit. It's easy for us to ignore the fact that he got the money by armed robbery. If we had to go and take that money at gunpoint personally, most of us would refuse to do it. We accept dirty money because the dirty work is kept out of sight.

--Len.

So you're saying that on the other hand we have four fingers and a thumb. We really wouldn't be any better off by changing, just have a different batch of problems. I can agree with that. My feeling is the old hack, "better the devil you know". I can live with it and at my place in life, I'm not anxious to change and go charging off blindly in new directions. (And just as you seem to have no concern for me or my stituation, I really don't care too much about yours.)
There are some things I like about the Libertarian platform, but there are other parts I don't. I just can't swalow the whole hairball. Of course I can say the same thing about the Reps and Dems. Maybe I should cherrypick from each and start my own party. (deadinism?) Who knows,I might be able to muster enough followers to set up a website, solict funds, and even run for office.

So you're saying that on the other hand we have four fingers and a thumb. We really wouldn't be any better off by changing, just have a different batch of problems.

Click to expand...

I believe that we'd be quite a bit better off: for example, gun control, socialized health care, etc., are completely impossible under liberty. Today they're not only possible, they're a growing threat.

But I think it suffices if we show we won't be any worse off. After all, would you rather be exactly as well off as you are now, but a slave? Or exactly as well off as you are now, but a free man? The choice seems obvious to me.

My feeling is the old hack, "better the devil you know". I can live with it and at my place in life, I'm not anxious to change and go charging off blindly in new directions.

Click to expand...

That's always true. The average Russian in 1980 felt exactly the same way. Heck, most Jews in Germany in 1939 felt that way. Most people will stick with the "devil they know," no matter how bad it might be.

--Len.

So? You worked for 20 years for a government-sanctioned cartel engaged in government-mandated socialist wealth-redistribuition schemes that screwed up the customers because they were protected from competition by the government.

Click to expand...

This statement does absolutely for your credence. (It almost sounds like you are readind from a "Little Red Book" or something similar) It just shows how much you don't know but are willing to spout off about. Insurance companies would love to get government out of their hair. You think rates are high now? The "government" you seem to detest so much controls the rates that an insurance company can charge. Got a bad driving record? You can still get insurance (albiet at a higher rate) because the nasty government says the insurance industry has to offer it. If the insurance company had their druthers, you wouldn't be insured. And you want to turn over liability responsibility over to the individual or an insurance company (without regulation!) I shouldn't have to pay to protect myself from someone who refuses to actually take responsibility for their actions. They may say they'e "responsible" for their actions, but if they don't have any money or insurance, I'm going to be paying my hospital bills regardless of what happens to them. If they spread thenselves all over the highway because they feel it's nobodys business if they wear a seatbelt or helmet, are we going to just leave them beside the road to die because they opted to not have insurance or don't have money? If not, who will pay for their care? If you make it mandantory that they are "responsible", then you've got the dirty government sticking its nose where it's not wanted.

But I think it suffices if we show we won't be any worse off. After all, would you rather be exactly as well off as you are now, but a slave? Or exactly as well off as you are now, but a free man? The choice seems obvious to me

Click to expand...

I don't see where you have shown me that I would be exactly "as well off".
I am retired, on a fixed income and quite dependent on Social Security an Medicare (part of the "Welfare State" that Libs seem to hate) and a government pension (military) that they also seem to want to do away with. (Lower taxes, smaller government. Who's going to fund it?) I have an IRA, but that will run out if I live too long.

I am retired, on a fixed income and quite dependent on Social Security an Medicare (part of the "Welfare State" that Libs seem to hate) and a government pension (military) that they also seem to want to do away with. (Lower taxes, smaller government. Who's going to fund it?)

Click to expand...

You raise a good point: some people, notably everyone who works for the government, could well be considerably worse off under liberty. "Society" will be no worse off, but individuals who profited from government theft and coercion will be, at least at first.

So you're right to call me on that. I shouldn't give the impression that implementing liberty would have no downside for anyone. The argument for liberty is that making thieves worse off is not a consideration, any more than we might ban self-defense because it can get criminals hurt.

Folks like Ron Paul propose a gradual transition to minimize the pain for folks already on, e.g., social security or medicare. I agree that they deserve sympathy. In taking stolen money, they are partly complicit in the crime, but they are themselves victims--of the original robbery back when they worked, and of the false promises of government. I'll point out, though, that if you live another 20 years--and I hope you have 50 more, all of them flourishing--you'll discover that social security and medicare were a false promise.

--Len.

So you will understand if I say take Libertarianism and put it where the sun don't shine until I am gone, and then I don't care what happens.

BTW: Your attitude that I am/was some sort of a "thief" because I served 20 years in the military sure isn't going to endear me to any of the drivel you are supporting.