Libertarianism discussion (cleansed)

[Aquagraph]

if a community which controlled the roads charged other communities to use them, that would be socialism between individuals and capitalism between communities.

Now I see your point! I must admit that I expect that libertarianism might bring down the concentration of power to smaller unites that compete, but I expected the ones with less "friction" in their markets would win in the end. How do you feel about that?

Libertarians cannot seem to comprehend the necessary and historically developed relationship between the "free market" and the state. The state must inevitably govern the market precisely because the market cannot govern itself.

I know you must disagree with me on some points (though we see similar problems) but I am curious about how you view the big picture and the fight of ideologies going on for the last 150/100/50 years. I want you to present your case for.. ..what I think I would call socialism? (Free feel to define the concepts we would use)

The Social Contract.

If you have people governing themselves you go back to Genghis Khan times.

I'm sorry but I don't remember your stance and I am sincerely lost with how to reply as I don't know whether you actually want to talk about the theories on the social contract.

[xerx]

Now I see your point! I must admit that I expect that libertarianism might bring down the concentration of power to smaller unites that compete, but I expected the ones with less "friction" in their markets would win in the end. How do you feel about that?

Yes, in groups where cooperators must compete against non-cooperators as individuals, the non-cooperators usually win. But when a group of cooperators competes against a group of non-cooperators, the cooperator group usually wins.



To answer your second question: I believe that society is capable of following a trajectory where reliance on both government and the market is significantly reduced.

New technologies like 3D printing could remove dependence on industries. The Internet could remove dependence on rentier middle-men as all transactions can be carried out peer-to-peer. Both are already happening to some extent. People wouldn't need to work as hard in a post-scarcity society with an abundance of material goods and even money would lose most of its value (both directly and as a symbol of personal identification).

The old American South was a society in which money had relatively little social value because the heavy work was done by a slave class. Nobilities have also tended to eschew identification with their wealth, preferring abstract concepts like honor, bloodline and patina.

The same deal probably applies to most government expenditures, including welfare programs. With enough resources and, without the need for government grants, groups of people can undertake their own mega projects such as faster than light travel and Matrioshka brains.


NTL: I still think we need a collective mechanism to enforce laws fairly.



So yeah.. future predictions are usually way off.

[Red Villain]

I know you must disagree with me on some points (though we see similar problems) but I am curious about how you view the big picture and the fight of ideologies going on for the last 150/100/50 years. I want you to present your case for.. ..what I think I would call socialism? (Free feel to define the concepts we would use).

I'm not sure what you mean by "how you view the big picture...", can you be more specific? I'll be able to provide a better answer once it is clarified, but for now:

The struggle between various ideologies is the social expression of the contradictions existing between various individuals, and groups of individuals, who belong to various economic conditions. Specifically, the struggle between Socialism and Libertarianism is the modern political expression of the most general social contradiction between the rich and poor.

I politically identify as Communist in order to distance myself from political Socialists, who are basically out for mere reforms, working within the legal framework to achieve their aims and are practically indistinguishable from Liberals. When we're speaking of socialism/communism as economic systems, they are essentially synonymous, differing only in terms of socio-economic development (e.g. Mercantile to Industrial capitalism).

[Aquagraph]

I want to keep this thread polite, concise and clean from bitter back-and-forth and so far I really like how it has been.

I politically identify as Communist in order to distance myself from political Socialists, who are basically out for mere reforms, working within the legal framework to achieve their aims and are practically indistinguishable from Liberals. When we're speaking of socialism/communism as economic systems, they are essentially synonymous, differing only in terms of socio-economic development (e.g. Mercantile to Industrial capitalism).

What do you think would be necessary to bring about the society you prefer?

NTL: I still think we need a collective mechanism to enforce laws fairly.

Hmm, why do you prefer monopolized justice?

[xerx]

Hmm, why do you prefer monopolized justice?

b / c the alternative is no justice system. justice, by definition, requires a consistent set of principles that applies to everyone in exactly the same way.

nobody could be held accountable if both parties decided what was in their best interests. physical violence ( ie. a feud ) would be the goto method of resolving disputes.

to see this principle in action, look into the history of international law, or the lack thereof, and the sad result of unchecked sectarianism.

[Aquagraph]

b / c the alternative is no justice system. justice, by definition, requires a consistent set of principles that applies to everyone in exactly the same way.

I believe the government isn't doing a good job on it either. Monopolized justice and security is also a dangerous position that seems to lead to tyranny, even if backed by a Constitution as has happened in the USA.

physical violence ( ie. a feud ) would be the goto method of resolving disputes.

I think willing participants can engage in duels to resolve disputes but private security that constantly wages wars with their rivals is unable to compete with ones that have more peaceful cooperation with their rivals using 3rd party arbiters agreed by both sides.

to see this principle in action, look into the history of international law, or the lack thereof, and the sad result of unchecked sectarianism.

Can you point out some?
Lex mercatoria seems pretty functional. And it's of private origins.

F.J.P. Veale describes the 15th century Italy:

the rich burghers and merchants of medieval
Italy were too busy making money and enjoying
life to undertake the hardships and dangers
of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the
practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting
for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike
folk, they dismissed their mercenaries immediately
after their services could be dispensed
with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies
hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time,
soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively
harmless profession. The generals of that
period maneuvered against each other, often
with consummate skill, but when one had won
the advantage, his opponent generally either
retreated or surrendered. It was a recognized
rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered
resistance: immunity could always be purchased
by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural consequence,
no town ever resisted, it being obvious
that a government too weak to defend its citizens
had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had
little to fear from the dangers of war which were
the concern only of professional soldiers.

[xerx]

I believe the government isn't doing a good job on it either. Monopolized justice and security is also a dangerous position that seems to lead to tyranny, even if backed by a Constitution as has happened in the USA.
I think willing participants can engage in duels to resolve disputes but private security that constantly wages wars with their rivals is in order to give them more rights is unable to compete with ones that have more peaceful cooperation with their rivals using 3rd party arbiters agreed by both sides.

This sort of justice exists in tribal societies that lack a government, but feuds (incl. blood feuds, to avenge a death of a family member) are also very common. Not everyone is willing to behave cooperatively or accept a toothless ruling, regardless of what naive theories on human nature have to say.

Organized religion spreads like wildfire in decentralized societies to offer order that transcends tribal affiliation.

Can you point out some?

For starters, Europe circa. 1914-1918.

Lex mercatoria seems pretty functional. And it's of private origins.

F.J.P. Veale describes the 15th century Italy:

the rich burghers and merchants of medieval
Italy were too busy making money and enjoying
life to undertake the hardships and dangers
of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the
practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting
for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike
folk, they dismissed their mercenaries immediately
after their services could be dispensed
with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies
hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time,
soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively
harmless profession. The generals of that
period maneuvered against each other, often
with consummate skill, but when one had won
the advantage, his opponent generally either
retreated or surrendered. It was a recognized
rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered
resistance: immunity could always be purchased
by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural consequence,
no town ever resisted, it being obvious
that a government too weak to defend its citizens
had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had
little to fear from the dangers of war which were
the concern only of professional soldiers.

Yeah.. mercenary armies frequently plunder(ed) the shit out of land that didn't resist.

[FDG]

New technologies like 3D printing could remove dependence on industries.

Sorry, what about industries that produce 3-d printers?

[Aquagraph]

@xerx and others
Why are states against people seceding with their property from the state? If some people bought, say, Detroit and wanted to secede would you want the US government to maintain their control in there?

I respect your right to opinions but I would never use violence to enforce my opinions.

[Aquagraph]

Sorry, what about industries that produce 3-d printers?

3D printers printing 3D printers, maybe? Self-rep is trying to do exactly that with their machine that keeps on evolving.
Human innovation

[xerx]

Sorry, what about industries that produce 3-d printers?

3d printers can manufacture themselves. n/m aqua beat me to it.

Why are states against people seceding with their property from the state? If some people bought, say, Detroit and wanted to secede would you want the US government to maintain their control in there?

no one person should have the right to "buy" detroit since it's full of people

[Red Villain]

I want to keep this thread polite, concise and clean from bitter back-and-forth and so far I really like how it has been.

What do you think would be necessary to bring about the society you prefer?

A revolutionary movement that seizes control and centralizes all financial institutions, property and industry; production to be regulated on a local, regional, national and, eventually, an international basis . How that would come about will vary from every country and isn't entirely up to people, but is sensitive to the economic/political conditions prevailing at the given time. Though it should be noted, this process is already taking place as fewer and fewer conglomerates come to dominate the market. Simply expropriating the DOW industries would bring us half-way there.

[Aquagraph]

A revolutionary movement that seizes control and centralizes all financial institutions, property and industry; production to be regulated on a local, regional, national and, eventually, an international basis . How that would come about will vary from every country and isn't entirely up to people, but is sensitive to the economic/political conditions prevailing at the given time. Though it should be noted, this process is already taking place as fewer and fewer conglomerates come to dominate the market. Simply expropriating the DOW industries would bring us half-way there.

Hmm. USSR and others weren't a great success. What went wrong? How will this be avoided?

no one person should have the right to "buy" detroit since it's full of people

But if those people are willing to sell a part of it? Okay, another place that is fully owned by a bunch of libertarians willing to try a project like this?

[xerx]

But if those people are willing to sell a part of it? Okay, another place that is fully owned by a bunch of libertarians willing to try a project like this?

that's different. they should be able to do whatever they wanted in that case. i wouldn't recommend it, personally

[Aquagraph]

that's different. they should be able to do whatever they wanted in that case. i wouldn't recommend it, personally

Why do you think almost every state opposes this?

[xerx]

Why do you think almost every state opposes this?

any of tens of reasons depending on the people in charge and the situation. it's too broad a question

for power, some politician's careerism, for ethnic sectarian populist reasons, to ensure the public safety, for ideological reasons (different ideology in the part that splits), to avoid collapse of an integrated economic system, to prevent fragmentation (which would lead to a weaker front vs. the threat of annexation from a neighbour), etc.

EDIT: and nationalism.

which is a natural extension of the human tendency to form groups

[Aquagraph]

@xerx, as far as I understood, you don't like big government either. How do you ensure that the government doesn't expand to the (often belligerent) police state that answers to no one, doesn't really reform and that takes half of what you make (which most western democracies are now imho)?

which is a natural extension of the human tendency to form groups

Those groups are often socially limited to around 150. I don't believe we are naturally inclined to nationalism, but we do form cultural associations with people inside an arbitrary line. The state uniforms this strongly because of it's tendency to give out one-size-solutions-fits-all that take a stranglehold on many cultural aspects, especially since the worldwide rise of nationalized socialism (I don't mean nazism) as opposed by culturally neutral republicanism (I don't mean GOP).

[xerx]

@xerx, as far as I understood, you don't like big government either. How do you ensure that the government doesn't expand to the (often belligerent) police state that answers to no one, doesn't really reform and that takes half of what you make (which most western democracies are now imho)?

Those groups are often socially limited to around 150. I don't believe we are naturally inclined to nationalism, but we do form cultural associations with people inside an arbitrary line. The state uniforms this strongly because of it's tendency to give out one-size-solutions-fits-all that take a stranglehold on many cultural aspects, especially since the worldwide rise of nationalized socialism (I don't mean nazism) as opposed by culturally neutral republicanism (I don't mean GOP).

it most certainly reforms. Sweden, UK and the US of 2014 are radically more democratic than in 1814. i don't think it's a question of big or small government. i think the issue is transparent government whose actions can be cross-examined by an active citizenry vs. an opaque institution which can cloak its actions.


it's also not a question of the number of freedoms. today's citizens enjoy different types of freedoms than their predecessors. there's more bureaucracy and more laws that restrict free agency, but there's also less fear of theft and less fear of discrimination.


women are afraid to walk alone in the streets in many third world countries because reliable law enforcement doesn't exist to prevent rape. they need men. this is not just true of the muslim world. western women can get naked in the street (sometimes).

western kids are far less dependent on their families' approval and can move out. that's in stark contrast to societies where loyalty to family traditions takes precedence because of the need for mutual protection.

the differences aren't ad hoc. these societies are more collectivist and conformist because people are more interdependent.

there are hiccups where traditions persist, like Japan and Korea. But even these are relaxing their attitudes more and more.