[nucklepunche]

Correct me if I'm wrong nucklepunche but didn't you say that in the past you were a Libertarian?

Yes, I am a former anarcho-capitalist. I eventually abandoned it and embraced a mushy moderate ideology.

IIRC he was, I think he's one of those people that have gone through several isms.

I've gone through several isms, but I am done with isms now.

In truth though it is a matter of degree. I started out on the left, went libertarian, then moderate, and now I am done worrying about subscribing to a particular label. In general anything beyond that has been nuanced and a matter of degree. When I was on the left I fluctuated between conventional American liberal and socialist democrat, as a libertarian I drifted between Hayekian classical liberalism, minimal statism, and anarcho-capitalism several times in the course of the roughly five years I considered myself a libertarian.

But broadly I've only really had four main phases, my left phase, my libertarian phase, my moderate phase, and now my post-labeling phase.

[Kman]

You seem very confused Nucklepunche.

[Rich]

The problem with the "market failure" arguments is that they invariably fail to demonstrate how a realistic alternative to the free market could do any better.

Sure, an omnipotent and omniscient all-good government could theoretically improve on the operation of the free market.

But a realistic government? Who knows?

First off I'm completely anti some governments. North Korea for example. If it had been left to the free market South Korea would have been overthrown. Having Liberal Democratic states is an undoubted improvement on not having them. In fact I'm not justifying any state prior to the introduction of universal male suffrage. The British state since 1919, over all has been a massive force for good even though it has committed much evil.

[Kman]

If it had been left to the free market South Korea would have been overthrown.

And you base this on what? A tingle in your left knee?

[Eran]

If it had been left to the free market South Korea would have been overthrown.

If it had been left to the free market, nobody would overthrow South Korea.

What you mean to say is that if South Korea (but not North Korea) unilaterally relinquished all its armed forces, without an appropriate substitute... That's a completely different statement.


South Korea could be a minarchy, and there still wouldn't be an issue.

Are you thinking of South Korea as a libertarian anarchy? If so, consider the market opportunity associated with protecting South Korea's many valuable industrial, residential and other resources. Wouldn't the residents of South Korea be willing to pay much to protect themselves against being taken-over by their Northern brothers?

With so much willingness to pay, what makes you doubt the ability of entrepreneurs to provide their South Korean customers with an excellent level of protection?

[Gletkin]

In truth though it is a matter of degree

The thing is though, is that it's ALWAYS about "degree".
"Minarchists" claim that they only want the amount of government that's "necessary". The problem is, the political mainstream makes essentially the same argument. That this or that govt. program is "necessary". Even within "libertarianism" individuals regarded as "libertarian" by some, are regarded as "not libertarian enough" or perhaps even "not libertarian at all" by others.
Where to draw the line can be tricky and I think that's a reason why some libertarians choose anarchism.
I doubt anarchy would be feasible though. Only primitive societies have lived in long-lasting societies that are arguably "anarchist" (hence the "primitivist" faction of anarchism) and even they have strictly-enforced mores that are tantamount to laws.
Not to mention most people would like to maintain our industrial/post-industrial/whatever you'd-like-to-call-it modern standard of living

You're right to avoid "isms". "Isms" often tend to trigger long bouts of No True Scotsman arguments anyway.

[Rothbardian]

In truth though it is a matter of degree.

Your post reads like a person searching for religion. In fact I'd say that's exactly what you've been doing.

[Eran]

"Minarchists" claim that they only want the amount of government that's "necessary". The problem is, the political mainstream makes essentially the same argument. That this or that govt. program is "necessary".

I'm not sure. The standard that mainstream advocates require for a government program is often that it would be "helpful" or "beneficial", not strictly "necessary".

But words don't matter. Libertarians of all stripes can and do advocate the scale-back of various government programs deemed "necessary" by the mainstream, but rejected as "necessary" (or even "beneficial") by virtually all libertarians.

We are still very far from the kind of society that will reveal material differences in opinion between most libertarians.

I doubt anarchy would be feasible though. Only primitive societies have lived in long-lasting societies that are arguably "anarchist" (hence the "primitivist" faction of anarchism) and even they have strictly-enforced mores that are tantamount to laws.

You are making an assertion backed, essentially, by the argument that "if X never existed, X can never exist". This form of argument failed repeatedly throughout history, whenever humanity experimented successfully with a new "X" such as representative democracy, legal equality to women, abolition of slavery or separation of church and state (to name but a few).

Consequently, you'd have to come up with concrete arguments for why you believe an advanced technological post-industrial society sustaining a modern standard of living couldn't exist as an anarchy.

To be clear, I do not claim we are anywhere near such a society. Much has to change by way of political culture for that to take place. But I don't see this change as less likely than many changes that have already taken place historically.

[Rich]

With so much willingness to pay, what makes you doubt the ability of entrepreneurs to provide their South Korean customers with an excellent level of protection?

I think you have a total fantasy about war. Libertarianism has the potential to disarm the free West. It has no potential to disarm North Korea. Its like Gandhi might turn the Hindus or the Brits pacifist but he wasn't going to turn the Nazis or the Muslims pacifist.

Private enterprise might have been OK for the pirates that attacked the Spanish empire in the 16th century. It achieved a lot in India in the eighteenth century, It could take on the American Indians. Maybe private enterprise can still influence events in certain African states. But private enterprise has achieved nothing in protecting against even medium level powers like Saddam's Iraq or North Korea let alone Nazi Germany or Mao's China. If the rich of the United States had wanted to set up charity funded private armed forces to fight Communism, I'm sure no one would have stopped them.

Its the Liberal Democratic State that gives you the freedom to be Libertarian. Its the Liberal Democratic state that gives you the freedom to complain about how the evil state is oppressing and exploiting you.

[Eran]

But private enterprise has achieved nothing in protecting against even medium level powers like Saddam's Iraq or North Korea let alone Nazi Germany or Mao's China.

But private enterprise has never been directed at protecting against any of those powers.

If 18th century England was able to produce a private corporation stronger than most Indian principalities, what makes you doubt that 21st century private enterprise could create a force that could defeat Saddam and deter North Korea?

The weapons of war are manufactured by private corporations. Today, they do it for government clients. But with sufficient demand, why doubt that their resources and expertise couldn't arm a powerful private force?

[Nunt]

I think you have a total fantasy about war. Libertarianism has the potential to disarm the free West. It has no potential to disarm North Korea. Its like Gandhi might turn the Hindus or the Brits pacifist but he wasn't going to turn the Nazis or the Muslims pacifist.

Private enterprise might have been OK for the pirates that attacked the Spanish empire in the 16th century. It achieved a lot in India in the eighteenth century, It could take on the American Indians. Maybe private enterprise can still influence events in certain African states. But private enterprise has achieved nothing in protecting against even medium level powers like Saddam's Iraq or North Korea let alone Nazi Germany or Mao's China. If the rich of the United States had wanted to set up charity funded private armed forces to fight Communism, I'm sure no one would have stopped them.

Its the Liberal Democratic State that gives you the freedom to be Libertarian. Its the Liberal Democratic state that gives you the freedom to complain about how the evil state is oppressing and exploiting you.

First of all, not many governments were able to withstand Nazi Germany or Mao's China. So a government is only a guarantee against invasion if you have the biggest government around.

I'm not sure why you drag the example of Iraq into the picture. What does that have to do with free markets?

Let me explain to you the idea behind a voluntary defense force:
1) People generally don't like being invaded as they tend to loose their property and their lives in the process.
2) If people are faced with the likelihood of invasion they are willing to pay for and contribute to the defence of their lives and property.
3) Thus some sort of defence force will eventually form.

We can not know in advance how good this defense for will be. But then again, not every nationstate has a state of the art defence force. Because to be honest, whether or not Belgium was libertarian or not in 1940, it wouldn't be able to withstand a nazi invasion. In reality it took the nazi's only 18 days to force the Belgian army into surrender.

[Eran]

In fact, recent examples from the Arab Spring show that even poorly-armed population can overcome ruthless and well-armed dictators.

A libertarian anarchy is likely to be very well armed, and the motivation to fight foreign invaders is likely to be at least as great (probably much greater) than the motivation of Arab masses to overthrow their domestic dictators.

And this before we contemplate the possibility of professional private armies hired to defend strategic installations or high-value targets by the owners of those installations or targets (or their insurance companies).

A libertarian anarchy cannot be conquered by merely occupying a capital city. An invader would face a highly unprofitable battle securing every street corner or little village from well-armed people fighting for their freedom and property. A much more likely scenario is that specific high value targets (e.g. oil fields or bank gold reserves) will be attacked. But the more focused and high-value the target is, the easier it is to imagine its owners finding the means (probably in cooperation with owners or nearby properties) to protect their property.

All your historic examples merely show that some governments were unable to defeat other governments. None speaks of the potential clash between aggressive government forces and defensive private ones.

[Rich]

First of all, not many governments were able to withstand Nazi Germany or Mao's China. So a government is only a guarantee against invasion if you have the biggest government around.

No Indeed, but I think France and Britain were unlucky not to have stopped Germany. I'm not saying the current system is anything close to justice, but Germany did lose because its extreme aggression meant it end up fighting too many powers at the same time. If you like you could say war is generally a conflict between the bad guys and the worse guys. The thing is overall the bad worse guys are often a lot worse.

My case is that since 1919 Britain America and France have been overall a force for good, or if you want to be pedantic a force for less bad. To a certain extent we have a problem with free riders. America has subsidised the defence of Western Europe. But the free rider problem is a thousand times worse with private enterprise. How many enterprises are going to donate between 1 and 10 percent of their gross revenue to defence? The East India company is particularly unfortunate example for Libertarians. It was a private company that turned into a government. It was setting up its own private empire. It wasn't so much in the defence business as the attack business. A lot of empire was European governments being drawn into clearing up the mess created by private enterprise.

In fact security " defence" has been privatised to significant degree in Africa in recent decades. During the cold war it was often said to lefties: "If you hate it here so much why don't fuck off back to Russia". People might have similar feelings about Libertarians and Africa. There are significant parts of Africa where there is no meaningful centralised government capable of taxing its citizens. Why don't Libertarians go and live in these havens of freedom.

[Eran]

How many enterprises are going to donate between 1 and 10 percent of their gross revenue to defence?

Precisely as many as value the defence at more than its cost. In circumstances such that the value of defence in mitigating or avoiding altogether the cost of aggression, enterprises would be delighted to spend (why "donate"?) the necessary funds.

Further, as history amply illustrates, when it comes to preserving their property and freedom, people often act unselfishly. The same motivation that pushed people to risk their lives in mass demonstrations against dictators (or in the early stages of any revolution) would equally compel them to collaborate, whether through personal service or donations to a valued cause.

There are significant parts of Africa where there is no meaningful centralised government capable of taxing its citizens. Why don't Libertarians go and live in these havens of freedom.

If I have a dollar for every time I had to explain that...

Let's try again.

Fundamentally, libertarians object to aggression (i.e. initiation of force against another person or their legitimate property) regardless of whether it its initiated by a central government, a local government or a gang of criminals.

The reason you hear libertarians talk so much against governments, but not against criminals isn't that we somehow prefer the aggression of criminal gangs over that of governments. The reason, rather, is that there is a general consensus against the aggression of criminal gangs. It is not in dispute. Government aggression, on the other hand, is considered legitimate by the mainstream but not by libertarians. Thus it is the object of libertarian discussion.

Coming back to Africa, while central government power may be weak, the overall intensity and frequency of aggression is very high, much higher than in developed nations. Libertarians don't advocate replacing government aggression with private aggression, but rather the elimination of all legitimised aggression.

What will be left is not a peaceful utopia, but rather a society in which all aggression is recognised and treated as illegitimate and criminal. Once aggression is recognised as illegitimate, the forces of society can be directed against it.

[Beal]

Where to draw the line can be tricky and I think that's a reason why some libertarians choose anarchism.

Sometimes absolutes are easier when it's difficult to draw the line anywhere else. (Abortion should always be legal. Abortion should never be legal.) However I think there is a pretty obvious place to draw the line for minarchist libertarians, before you arrive at absolute anarchy: the state should only exist and involve itself in human affairs in order to protect and enhance our must fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. This means enforcing contracts, policing and punishing theft, assault, and murder, negotiating with other countries (so long as it promotes our fundamental rights), and probably a few other basic functions I'm not considering right now. That seems like a fairly obvious line to me.

[Rothbardian]

Sometimes absolutes are easier when it's difficult to draw the line anywhere else. (Abortion should always be legal. Abortion should never be legal.) However I think there is a pretty obvious place to draw the line for minarchist libertarians, before you arrive at absolute anarchy: the state should only exist and involve itself in human affairs in order to protect and enhance our must fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. This means enforcing contracts, policing and punishing theft, assault, and murder, negotiating with other countries (so long as it promotes our fundamental rights), and probably a few other basic functions I'm not considering right now. That seems like a fairly obvious line to me.

Putting a loaded gun to your head and claiming I'm doing so because I'm concerned about your safety is a performative contradiction. In the same sense, creating a government to keep you safe doesn't make any sense.

[Nunt]

No Indeed, but I think France and Britain were unlucky not to have stopped Germany. I'm not saying the current system is anything close to justice, but Germany did lose because its extreme aggression meant it end up fighting too many powers at the same time.

I think it likely that if an aggressive government starts attacking a whole world of libertarians, that the government will loose.