Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance
Posts
I'm curious, what is an example of a large scale libertarian ideology in the real world, at any point in history? The closest I can think of is several failed African states.
And what, precisely, keeps this from happening again?
The community can handle the first one just fine. The second one is a problem and can be taken care of by asking them to stop. If they don't they can be taken to court.
>What about air pollution? Or noise pollution? What if the business that pollutes provides jobs and money to enough people that there is a disagreement about if they should get removed from the community, what do you do then?
The first 2 I've already addressed. As for the last one, in a capitalist society, the business would have to be shut down and the people would have to rely on charity until they can find another source of income. In a socialist society, the business would be shut down but the people would be provided with food, water, housing, and everything else they need until new jobs could be found. Assuming the pollution couldn't be controlled that is.
No. We are a waste society. Excess is destroyed and we are pushed to recycle and "upgrade" constantly.
Anarchism and libertarianism are lost causes.
Iceland used to have a libertarian capitalist society. The Hutterites currently live a libertarian socialist lifestyle here in the US, Spain had an anarchist society for a little while and Sweden did as well (though that was more of a large hippy commune). Madagascar's government stays out of its country side and the people live with no government oversight.
How would the community shut it down? What if it's a state or nation wide corporation? Would you only shut down its local branch or the whole company?
How long could your non-violent, ungoverned society hold against despot who don't play by your rules?
"We don't need governments, here's why."
"Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."
"Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."
"Oh, so basically Governments?"
"No, not the same."
History, on line one, for you.
Whose court? Your court? Their court? Or the court of the government that has established a higher court, and levies taxes on both communities to pay for it oh shit here we are back where we started.
By?
From?
By?
From?
So...magic.
It fails on any scale where you're dealing with strangers, or people who you don't expect to see again in the future. Because that's when you need a third person mediator to help resolve things. This is basically explained in Graeber's book, linked to in the OP. One of the primary functions of governments is to resolve disputes that people are unable to resolve on their own.
That means that functioning libertarianism and a free market economy are incompatible, because a free market economy takes place that makes functioning libertarianism impossible.
It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.
for the first one, no, the community can't because who decides how much minor pollution you are allowed to make? Someone will have to decide what chemicals are allowable and how much, and you are going to have a lot of arguments about what that proper level is and how important a good lawn is. And for the second one ok, so we take the other community to court, who decides who wins? And when someone does win, who makes sure that they follow the ruling?
You say that the business will be shut down, but what if not everyone wants it to be shut down. Lets say we have a big factory in a town and it is putting out a bunch of pollution. Half the town thinks the factory needs to close because of the pollution. The other half either works there or has employees as their customers or whatever so they want it to stay up and say the pollution isn't such a big deal. How do you make a ruling and enforce it without a government?
Let's assume you're capable of rational, coherent thought. Explain, in no uncertain terms, how we would transition from the current situation to the one you propose.
Theory is one thing, application another.
If there's no coercion, you are free to ignore their recommendations, right?
Dunno. Some people think it would work on minutes and hours and that would be used as a form of currency. 5 minutes of work would buy you a cup of coffee or something like that.
I'm thinking we're going to see pages and pages of this.
So, aside from Madagascar, nothing that lasted?
Also, should I note that some of those benefit from non-libertarian societies directly or indirectly? Like, the Hutterites don't enforce their own property rights. They also aren't completely self-sufficient; they sell goods out on the (non-libertarian) markets, then use that (non-libertarian) money to buy things.
Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody or cause significant environmental damage without cleaning it up.
Each year thousands of people suffer respiratory problems and die from their output. This has been significantly reduced by safety standards enforced by the federal government. How do you, without a strong national government, arrive at those safety standards?
How do you assign individual blame to coal plants? How do you arrive at the conclusion that your cough is from the coal plant 400 miles from you and not from something else without a government to fund studies into the long term effects of coal? These are complicated issues with thousands of moving parts, issues whos ramifications are completely invisible to an individual or group of individuals unless they spend absurd amounts of money trying to get to the bottom of them.
This is completely sidestepping global warming, an issue so transparent to an individual that despite the global consensus on the subject significant chunks of the public refuse to believe in it, and virtually no Libertarians do. The reason is because global warming cannot be solved by Libertarian ideology, it's existence can't even be acknowledged.
You see the problem with this?
There's no regulatory oversight.
If all men were angels we wouldn't need government. Unfortunately there will always be someone looking to dick over other people. The idea is that government protects people from that.
I recommend you read some Adam Smith, all of it, not just the parts that the far right cherry picks to support corporate greed.
So it's coercive if your actions harm somebody?
GOVERNMENT!
Light government, but nonetheless GOVERNMENT.
You are being a goose. You are making an argument for government here while claiming you are not.
But, keep chasing your tail
it does look delicious
That is to say, it's the same principle of libertarianism. What the anarchists want and what the result will be are different and are often espoused without regard to any social theory or knowledge of cause/effect.
This is a topic of debate among anarchists. First of all no entity would have a monopoly on legitimate force, because that is a government. Second, it cannot kick people out of a community or throw them in jail without a really good reason. A really good reason is usually the person is violent and cannot be reformed. If there is a prison, it would be very nice, and the people would either be worked to pay off their debt (likely in a capitalist society) or receive therapy (in a socialist society).
If some crazy old cook is guarding his land with a rifle but otherwise stays to himself, he'll be left alone (there's an example of this in Texas).
None of your solutions rectify either the voluntary or coercive problems. As I stated previously, you really need to define what you mean by "Government." Forcing people from your society if they don't play by the rules is the definition of involuntary and coercive - which are the only solutions you've proposed.
Who makes the decision about what person is harmless and what person isn't? I for one wouldn't go along with your vision, and would violently oppose your worldview. So would the vast majority of the population. What do you do about us? How do you overthrow the existing society?
The terminology you are using covers a small community with known actors, it is hopelessly insufficient to cover nations of hundreds of millions, cities with blocks that have populations greater than a small town, or international relations.
What does your society do when a neighborhood of thousands of people decide they want to stone adulterers to death? What do they do when a city decides it wants to kick all the black people out and seize their property?
Ahaha. This is only my viewpoint. Some people think there shouldn't be prison or banishment at all. But if you have somebody harming somebody else it's in the best interest of the community that they are removed, this is a last case scenario for extreme situations (like that Norwegian murderer). Because there is no monopoly this can't grow to an extreme like a government can.
There would be regulatory oversight. For consumer goods they'd have a stamp of approval on them showing they were examined and are safe. For businesses there would be an organization that would oversee them and make sure they are following regulations.
Businesses are also capable of self regulating.
You're assuming studies and science couldn't be done without government.
Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.
Stuff like this actually happens you know. If you're shunned and you come back, you'll get kicked out again. This will happen until the community gets tired of it, and the person would be confined and given psychiatric help.