It was not impossible to build it in the middle of the sea; it was impossible to build it anywhere else.

Tanglebones wrote:
Seth wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Will it have the death penalty?

Will it have courts?

Is space an issue?

Will it have to be an electric chair?

NathanialG wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Seth wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Will it have the death penalty?

Will it have courts?

Is space an issue?

Will it have to be an electric chair?

Will it have to be the death penalty?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Seth wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Will it have the death penalty?

Will it have courts?

Is space an issue?

Will it have to be an electric chair?

Will it have to be the death penalty?

Space is an issue, has to be...
IMAGE(http://octopup.org/img/burning-man/2002/60-Thu/m/BM2002-0968-08292340-Thunderdome-.jpg)

NathanialG wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Seth wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Will it have the death penalty?

Will it have courts?

Is space an issue?

Will it have to be an electric chair?

Electric chair + looser building codes * ocean = Wackiness Ensues!

Libertarians are big on contract enforcement and law and order. They believe in few laws, but the ones that do exist are enforced strictly. Theft, fraud, and violence are absolutely verboten. Just not much else is.

So, yes, they will have courts and police. It's not Somalia -- that's anarchy. Libertarians want small government, but not none. The goal is to minimize the total amount of violence, theft, and fraud happening, including by the government.

I don't think it will work, because the ethos is missing important understandings, like economic coercion and externalization of costs. Libertarianism is not fully cooked yet. But maybe they'll figure that stuff out.

Gravey wrote:

That said, putting a bunch of selfish, entitled people together in a small enclosed space with unlimited access to weapons and poor building construction sounds like it has one inevitable conclusion. I look forward to the Battlefield 3 map based on the outcome.

Or failing that, a reality show I would actually watch.

Gravey wrote:

That said, putting a bunch of selfish, entitled people together in a small enclosed space with unlimited access to weapons and poor building construction sounds like it has one inevitable conclusion. I look forward to the Battlefield 3 map based on the outcome.

I hope I am not the only one who laughed out loud at this.

IMAGE(http://www.arcade-history.com/images/game/2476_1.png)

Malor wrote:

So, yes, they will have courts and police. It's not Somalia -- that's anarchy. Libertarians want small government, but not none. The goal is to minimize the total amount of violence, theft, and fraud happening, including by the government.

I don't think it will work, because the ethos is missing important understandings, like economic coercion and externalization of costs. Libertarianism is not fully cooked yet. But maybe they'll figure that stuff out.

Anyone who thinks that taxation is the government literally taking their money at gunpoint isn't exactly going to be very supportive of institutions of government force like the police. And Somalia isn't anarchy. Somalia is what you get when you have a weak and ineffective government: anyone who has enough money or AKs can pretty much do what they want.

Libertarianism is more than just not fully cooked. It is fundamentally flawed. When you have a weak government there is absolutely no reason anyone has to pay attention to it. So even if one libertarian sued another and was awarded damages there is no way to ensure that those damages will be paid because the government is too weak to enforce the ruling. Sure, if the community was small enough you could possibly apply social pressure, but that doesn't scale very well. It also doesn't account for disparities of wealth and resources. A rich and powerful libertarian would never have to pay attention to court rulings as the local sheriff would never get past his bodyguard to arrest him.

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

So, yes, they will have courts and police. It's not Somalia -- that's anarchy. Libertarians want small government, but not none. The goal is to minimize the total amount of violence, theft, and fraud happening, including by the government.

I don't think it will work, because the ethos is missing important understandings, like economic coercion and externalization of costs. Libertarianism is not fully cooked yet. But maybe they'll figure that stuff out.

Anyone who thinks that taxation is the government literally taking their money at gunpoint isn't exactly going to be very supportive of institutions of government force like the police. And Somalia isn't anarchy. Somalia is what you get when you have a weak and ineffective government: anyone who has enough money or AKs can pretty much do what they want.

Libertarianism is more than just not fully cooked. It is fundamentally flawed. When you have a weak government there is absolutely no reason anyone has to pay attention to it. So even if one libertarian sued another and was awarded damages there is no way to ensure that those damages will be paid because the government is too weak to enforce the ruling. Sure, if the community was small enough you could possibly apply social pressure, but that doesn't scale very well. It also doesn't account for disparities of wealth and resources. A rich and powerful libertarian would never have to pay attention to court rulings as the local sheriff would never get past his bodyguard to arrest him.

In a Libertarian neighborhood, it's the lawn signs that say "This house is protected by no government. Please be nice." that keep people from looting it.

Anyone who thinks that taxation is the government literally taking their money at gunpoint

Ultimately, what gives the government the ability to extract tax from you is the ability to use force. Anyone who thinks this ISN'T the basis for taxation is deluding themselves. You can't opt out, and you can't opt out because they have bigger guns than you do.

Maybe it's a necessary evil, maybe it's the way to minimize overall theft and violence and coercion in the world, but it IS an armed taking, just hidden through a couple of levels of indirection. Calling it anything else is not properly analyzing the situation. If someone fails to comply, and if the various levers that have been invented to force others to comply on your behalf fail, the final answer is physical force. They show up and arrest you, and they will injure or kill you if you fight back.

When you have a weak government there is absolutely no reason anyone has to pay attention to it. So even if one libertarian sued another and was awarded damages there is no way to ensure that those damages will be paid because the government is too weak to enforce the ruling.

You're making a strawman. Libertarians want strong contract enforcement. Therefore, the government will be strong enough to enforce contracts. If it isn't, they'll strengthen it until it is. They still award the monopoly on violence to the government, they just try to constrain its use as much as they can. Their ultimate ideal is a society where you don't have to participate in anything you don't agree with, that nobody can force you to do things you don't want to do, as long as you're not engaging in violence, theft, or coercion.

Everyone likes to paint libertarianism as utterly selfish, but the actual envisioned ideal is happy, enthusiastic cooperation to achieve shared goals. But if someone doesn't share your goal, he or she doesn't have to join you.

A rich and powerful libertarian would never have to pay attention to court rulings as the local sheriff would never get past his bodyguard to arrest him.

Again, you're making things up. Libertarians wouldn't tolerate that. They want government as weak as possible, but no weaker. You're imagining that they want a government that is too weak to do the things they want it to do.

You seem to be making up scenarios that would require them to not what want they explicitly say they want, and further assume that they would be too stupid to fix problems once they realized they had them.

I wish them godspeed on finding a far-away place to libertate in peace. I would contribute if I had any money. Good luck, Atlantexas!

Weak government is the wrong emphasis. The call is actually for an "energetic" federal government that is actually very strong concerning powers granted to it. The "libertarian" founders were actually at odds with the "democratic" caucus over this. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay spent much time in the Federalist Papers advocating for an "energetic" government. Many of the state governors were pushing for a weak government because they feared loss of their sovereign powers and a return of monarchy in the form of the new President.

The core concept is limiting the scope of its involvement to a limited number of necessary functions. National defense and law enforcement are obviously necessary functions. Taxation is also required to fund that government.

It also isn't fundamentally skewed to rich folks. That didn't come about until the income tax, which was needed because the "will of the people" took away the primary source of federal funding, excise taxes, in 1920.

Tanglebones wrote:

IMAGE(http://www.arcade-history.com/images/game/2476_1.png)

BIG MONEY! BIG PRIZES!
I LOVE IT!

Malor wrote:

You're making a strawman. Libertarians want strong contract enforcement. Therefore, the government will be strong enough to enforce contracts. If it isn't, they'll strengthen it until it is. They still award the monopoly on violence to the government, they just try to constrain its use as much as they can. Their ultimate ideal is a society where you don't have to participate in anything you don't agree with, that nobody can force you to do things you don't want to do, as long as you're not engaging in violence, theft, or coercion.

Everyone likes to paint libertarianism as utterly selfish, but the actual envisioned ideal is happy, enthusiastic cooperation to achieve shared goals. But if someone doesn't share your goal, he or she doesn't have to join you.

The problem is that you really can't have strong contract enforcement and a weak government. A government strong enough to enforce contracts is one that lots of libertarians would find oppressive. What libertarians seem to want is a fully functioning legal and law enforcement system, much like we have now, except that they don't want to pay for it and they want it to leave them completely alone except for when they want to sue someone.

People paint libertarians as selfish because they act selfish and champion selfish policies. There is never a talk of shared responsibilities or community within libertarianism, only property (specifically MY property).

Malor wrote:
A rich and powerful libertarian would never have to pay attention to court rulings as the local sheriff would never get past his bodyguard to arrest him.

Again, you're making things up. Libertarians wouldn't tolerate that. They want government as weak as possible, but no weaker. You're imagining that they want a government that is too weak to do the things they want it to do.

You seem to be making up scenarios that would require them to not what want they explicitly say they want, and further assume that they would be too stupid to fix problems once they realized they had them.

I'm not making things up. I'm simply looking back through history. If your government is weak or distant and you are powerful and local you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want. It was that way in the Middle Ages, it was that way when the West was being settled, and it's that way right now in Afghanistan and loads of other places. Pretending that it would be any different in the future is just ridiculous.

You seem to be assuming that libertarians want government. That seems to be at odds with the fact that most of them spend a great deal of effort talking about getting rid of *all* government.

At the very least it's safe to say that libertarians aren't exactly in lockstep with how much government is enough government so that would make it extremely difficult to fix problems once they inevitably pop up. I doubt very much that the community meeting where giving the government more power to fix a problem is proposed is going to go over very well with a bunch of people who think they are rugged, self-made individualists.

How much would you invest in a plan to get Libertarians out of the country and floating on platforms in the sea? I'm all in!

The problem is that you really can't have strong contract enforcement and a weak government.

Of course you can. You don't WANT that to be true, because you don't like Libertarianism. But that doesn't make it so. Substitute "limited" for "weak", and the way to accomplish that goal should be a little more obvious. It can be quite strong in certain domains, while not having power in others.

You simply believe, it would appear, that anyone who's a Libertarian is loathsome and cannot live in a functioning society. You seem unwilling to believe they could have moral agency or problem-solving ability.

It will be interesting to find out if that's true.

The amount of hyperbole, doom-saying and passive aggressiveness in P&C has gone from "concerning" to "deeply hilarious" in my eyes.

Malor wrote:
The problem is that you really can't have strong contract enforcement and a weak government.

Of course you can. You don't WANT that to be true, because you don't like Libertarianism. But that doesn't make it so. Substitute "limited" for "weak", and the way to accomplish that goal should be a little more obvious. It can be quite strong in certain domains, while not having power in others.

You simply believe, it would appear, that anyone who's a Libertarian is loathsome and cannot live in a functioning society. You seem unwilling to believe they could have moral agency or problem-solving ability.

It will be interesting to find out if that's true.

Then prove it, Malor. Show me where there's ever been a functioning society that's remotely close to what the Libertarians talk about.

I simply believe that Libertarians are people who believe more strongly in a mythos than they do in reality. It's one of those simplistic and idealistic ideas on how to run a society that would fail horribly for the simple reason it places far too much emphasis on the individual. Humanity progressed and civilizations flourished only because we cooperated and did things for the common good. Libertarians want to ignore those 12,000 years of social development and replace it all with an ethos of selfishness hidden under the banner of contracts.

I think it has value if it can serve as a petri dish.
Ultimately I think the real flaw is that you have to depend on people having common sense.
I'm socially libertarian, but economically, corporations would simply have too much power,
then again, if they did consumers would have to get smarter.

Malor wrote:
The problem is that you really can't have strong contract enforcement and a weak government.

Of course you can. You don't WANT that to be true, because you don't like Libertarianism. But that doesn't make it so. Substitute "limited" for "weak", and the way to accomplish that goal should be a little more obvious. It can be quite strong in certain domains, while not having power in others.

You simply believe, it would appear, that anyone who's a Libertarian is loathsome and cannot live in a functioning society. You seem unwilling to believe they could have moral agency or problem-solving ability.

It will be interesting to find out if that's true.

You can also take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need. And we saw how well that worked out historically. Of course, we also have plenty of historical examples of what happens when your government consists purely of a police force.

The fact that neither of those worked out well has nothing to do with whether they *can* work. Given people who have "moral agency and problem-solving ability", both work just fine. And yet, somehow, the historical examples never show it quite working as well as people would like.

OG_slinger wrote:

Humanity progressed and civilizations flourished only because we cooperated and did things for the common good.

Yes, this is true, but such cooperation has always been at the tip of a spear, even if all you're doing is paying taxes.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel, essentially we are able to do more and greater works because we turn over more authority to a centralized power. If Libertarians think there is another way, then let's try to find it.

I think it might be interesting if Libertarians had the notion of replacing government with a central corporation, one specifically chartered to look after the welfare of its members. Joining and leaving are voluntary, minors and anyone residing on the corporation's property are essentially provisional members.
I can imagine something like that working very well for large interplanetary expeditions/colonies which aren't financed by a specific nation.
I do realize such a central corporation is really a government with another name, but the real difference is that governments are passive. They persist whether you participate or not. The real difference is that of the perspective of actively belonging to an organization.
Even if such a corporation didn't be the government, it might do well enough to provide large consumer groups protection from practices of large corporations, thus making economic libertarianism much more palatable.

OG_slinger wrote:

There is never a talk of shared responsibilities or community within libertarianism, only property (specifically MY property).

Take it from a real Libertarian - talk in our circles is entirely about community, networking, and how to establish private group solutions instead of top-down government solutions. It's what we're all about.

At the very least it's safe to say that libertarians aren't exactly in lockstep with how much government is enough government so that would make it extremely difficult to fix problems once they inevitably pop up.

Take a look around you. How many problems have been fixed by voluntary cooperation, and how many by government force? The fact is that people are really good at solving problems, especially when coercion is not involved. Libertarianism, at its core, is about peaceful, voluntary solutions to problems that we currently "solve" by hitting people on the head with a rock.

I doubt very much that the community meeting where giving the government more power to fix a problem is proposed is going to go over very well with a bunch of people who think they are rugged, self-made individualists.

Witness a bunch of "self-made individualists" celebrating their community, cooperation, and voluntary trade - notably, while a significant percentage of the attendees are openly armed. Libertarians aren't about being Robinson Crusoe, they are about self-ownership and self-determination - making your own choices when it comes to your cooperation and interactions with other people, rather than being told what to do by the government.

I think the Libertarian could work, and this example could be successful, but only if all the people involved actually believed in the Libertarian ideals. The problem with implementing a Libertarian society in the real world isn't getting the Libertarians to buy in; the problem is that society would inevitably have a large group that DOESN'T buy in, and would seek to simply take the system and screw it over for their own purposes. That's what makes societies fail, not the ideals themselves. If this group is small enough to attract only the 'ideologically pure' but large enough to function, it might succeed. Which doesn't actually say much about Libertarianism at all. If everyone honestly believed that anarchy was right, then you could have a 'successful' anarchic society as well.
Its those darn people who think 'different' that cause all the problems

Then prove it, Malor. Show me where there's ever been a functioning society that's remotely close to what the Libertarians talk about.

Look, I can't prove that it'll work, only they can. But the fact that you don't like the ethos doesn't mean it won't work, and waving around ridiculous hypothetical scenarios is hardly proof of anything.

Your argument sounds very much like someone arguing for the divine right of kings, how a rabble could never form a functioning government; they were illiterate, stupid, and lazy, and had no business in the corridors of power. It was obviously intended by God for there to be kings, and any claims to the contrary are dangerous heresies.

You're a lunatic, sir, if you think democracy, or even that weird hybrid, the republic, could work.

the problem is that society would inevitably have a large group that DOESN'T buy in, and would seek to simply take the system and screw it over for their own purposes.

Yeah, there are a number of real problems with it, and one is that they don't seem to understand that sociopaths exist, and appear, in fact, to be about 1% of the population. But I promise you, while Libertarianism may not have sociopathy in its worldview, sociopaths most emphatically know about Libertarianism.

Aetius wrote:

Take it from a real Libertarian - talk in our circles is entirely about community, networking, and how to establish private group solutions instead of top-down government solutions. It's what we're all about.

A *real* Libertarian? Come on. Practically every angry white dude who thinks he pays too much taxes or thinks he should be able to smoke weed fancies himself a Libertarian.

Aetius wrote:

Take a look around you. How many problems have been fixed by voluntary cooperation, and how many by government force? The fact is that people are really good at solving problems, especially when coercion is not involved. Libertarianism, at its core, is about peaceful, voluntary solutions to problems that we currently "solve" by hitting people on the head with a rock.

We are really good at solving problems that involve the group. Libertarianism, however, is all about the individual. The only way Libertarians can address group problems is by suing because their property is being damaged or affected, which simply means you're hiding behind the skirts of government to actually get something done.

Aetius wrote:

Witness a bunch of "self-made individualists" celebrating their community, cooperation, and voluntary trade - notably, while a significant percentage of the attendees are openly armed. Libertarians aren't about being Robinson Crusoe, they are about self-ownership and self-determination - making your own choices when it comes to your cooperation and interactions with other people, rather than being told what to do by the government.

Oh, I listened to that podcast. Nothing like a libertarian selling bacon weaves for gold flakes using eggs and bacon that have been USDA inspected and yet still calling himself a bad ass rebel. I guess you missed parts of the podcast that showed that even simple economic transactions where hard as hell to conduct because dollars weren't accepted and everyone had to have gold or sliver (and trust that whoever was selling the precious metals wasn't ripping them off). Laminated flakes of gold are really going to scale nicely in an economy...

This is why Libertarianism is pure fantasy. It requires a clean social, political, and economic slate, something that doesn't exist anywhere. Without being Robinson Crusoe Libertarians are just like the bacon weave guy, railing against the government while relying on it.

Malor wrote:

Look, I can't prove that it'll work, only they can. But the fact that you don't like the ethos doesn't mean it won't work, and waving around ridiculous hypothetical scenarios is hardly proof of anything.

So, just to make sure I got this right: you insist that it's a certitude that Libertarians can have a weak government that provides strong contract enforcement only to later admit that that assertion is simply a ridiculous hypothetical scenario? Got it.

Seriously, a simple thought exercise shows the contraction at the heart of Libertarianism. Say you just moved to the town of Libertyville and just bought a nice plot of land on the banks of Freedom River. Unfortunately, Mr. Rand, a powerful and rich man owns a factory upstream from you that pollutes like a motherf*cker. Since the founding fathers of Libertyville didn't want any pesky government forcing people not to do stupid things like pollute, your only means of redress is to sue Mr. Rand in court.

Since he's rich and you're not, good luck finding a lawyer who will A) take your case and B) be good enough to take down the team of lawyers Mr. Rand is going to bring to the table. Oh, and don't forget to have enough money to hire people to do all the environmental impact studies your going to need in court to prove your being damaged. And while you're at it, make sure you hire a couple of economists to calculate appropriate damages. What's that? You don't have that kind of money? Well, then. You best get used to the smell of crud washing up on your property.

But, you say, you could band together with every other property owner along the river to sue Mr. Rand. Sure. Good luck getting hundreds or thousands of self-described individualists to cooperate for the months or years it will take to sue Mr. Rand. Also, make sure you don't get shot for trespassing when initially talking to all those property owners. I hear they take their privacy seriously.

But what happens if you win your lawsuit? In the crazy event you actually win the case you still need Mr. Rand to follow through. It could be that you just get monetary damages and that Mr. Rand can still pollute all he wants. After all, it's just one lawsuit brought by one property owner so there's not a pattern of damage that would require the government to take the egregious step of forcefully interfering with how Mr. Rand runs his business.

Even so, Mr. Rand has to pay you...and what happens if he decides not to? Is the government of Libertyville going to dispatch the city's one and only cop to force Mr. Rand to cut a check? What happens when said cop tries to enforce the court's decision only to be turned away at the gates of Mr. Rand's factory by 20 armed Rand, Inc. security guards?

According to you, the government will need to be strong enough to enforce court decisions. That means it would need to be just slightly more powerful than the most powerful citizen. In our case, the city of Libertyville would need to hire more police so it could force open the gates of Rand, Inc. and get Mr. Rand to cut your check. Except hiring more police is a grave contradiction of Libertarian values. They don't want a lot of police, but there are circumstances where a lot of police are needed.

But, you say, the court decision could be enforced another way, such as somehow empowering the Libertyville government to confiscate Mr. Rand's property to pay the settlement. Again, another grave contradiction of Libertarian values.

Which is my core assertion: any government strong enough to enforce contracts or legal claims is going give most Libertarians the willies. You're either going to end up with a society blatantly run by the people with the most wealth and power or strengthen your weak government to the point that it's not weak anymore.

Malor wrote:

Your argument sounds very much like someone arguing for the divine right of kings, how a rabble could never form a functioning government; they were illiterate, stupid, and lazy, and had no business in the corridors of power. It was obviously intended by God for there to be kings, and any claims to the contrary are dangerous heresies.

You're a lunatic, sir, if you think democracy, or even that weird hybrid, the republic, could work.

And yet Libertarianism wants everyone to act like they are all kings, masters of their domains and accountable to no one but god.

That's the funniest part of Libertarianism. It wants to make the individual the center of everything and completely ignore the fact that thousands of years ago the individual was at the center of everything. And rather than keeping that focus on the individual over the millenia humans actively chose to favor working together, putting the group before the individual. The social experiment has already been run and the group triumphed over the individual.

Democracy, an experiment that's still running, has done much to bring the idea of stronger individual rights--something that has been simmering the background for centuries--to the forefront. Democracy provides a balance between the power of government and the rights of individuals. But Libertarians aren't happy with that. They want us to turn the clock back some 10,000 years and have us repeat our social development all over when we already know how it will end up.

Aetius wrote:

Take a look around you. How many problems have been fixed by voluntary cooperation, and how many by government force? The fact is that people are really good at solving problems, especially when coercion is not involved. Libertarianism, at its core, is about peaceful, voluntary solutions to problems that we currently "solve" by hitting people on the head with a rock.

I am having a hard time with this point. If we look at some of the biggest problems in this country's history, I think most of the solutions have been government force.

All the well-meaning, sympathetic people who gather together to say that "gay people are people, too" can get together and try to convince others that we are all equal, no matter who likes to put what where and it doesn't stop hospitals not allowing same-sex partners to visit. Put a law saying it, and the problem is solved, because the state said that these people are married now, and are allowed. Law implies government force, right?

People with higher levels of melanin in their skin, mostly with an African ancestry are not allowed to go to school. Maybe there are a few thousand people who are willing to get blasted by fire hoses to point out how wrong that is, but the schools stay barred. One smaller government even goes so far as to bring armed men to prevent educating dark-skinned people. The bigger, stronger government says that that can't happen, and justice is served. Nothing against the bravery or purity of mission of the non-violent cooperators, but they didn't fix the problem, just brought it more into focus.

Any military operation that does not include strict defense of our borders would be certainly be government force, but did that actually solve any problems? I think we can categorically say that West Front WWII absolutely did. Other 20th century wars, maybe not, but did the armed conflict get closer to fixing things than people trying to band together in comunities?

Am I wrong? Can you give me a couple of examples of big problems we have faced that were solved without government force?

Libertarians are far more comfortable in their fantasy world while the rest of us deal with problems in the real world. Education, fire protection, workplace safety, transportation and food safety are all things Libertarians want to unfix with their "ethos" after real people in the real world already worked to correct the ills caused by these areas not being regulated or handled by a central government.

I think the epitome of this was a libertarian that explained to me that even a police force is not necessary. With a straight face, he told me that communities could band together and form their own security. He didn't even see the irony of the fact that his great libertarian plan was to pitch in and all support a common service. People not willing to support it would have to live somewhere else. It's all about freedom.

I just wish libertarians would use their freedom to exit right now. Find some other wonderland or floating platform, and have at it. The rest of us are living in the real world where sometimes we have to pay for stuff we don't agree with. I'm not saying what we have is perfect, and it sure as hell needs improving. Maybe it isn't "fully cooked." But the world libertarians want is a crappy place America left a long time ago.