Pardon the somewhat provocative subject, but it’s not easy coming up with short titles sometimes.
Anyway, the question is this: Suppose Libertaria came into existence, and was governed by Libertarian principles. We’re all familiar with the notion of something working fine in theory, yet horribly in practice (perpetual motion and communism come to mind). What if Libertarianism just didn’t work? By “didn’t work”, I mean that society as a whole just goes to hell in a handbasket. There is rampant crime and violence, education is a joke, everyone is poor except for a few wealthy folks who crush their inferiors… you get the idea.
Now I know that as Libertarians, y’all believe that it will work, and I don’t really want to debate whether Libertarian philosophy is naive or not. I just want to know: If Libertaria isn’t the paradise that you thought it would be, how far downhill would things have to slide before you opted to go with something more authoritarian, presumably something closer to democracy in the US? Is there a point at which you would reconsider, or would you choose to remain true to your principles, even if society as a whole was in abject misery?
Jeff
<< By “didn’t work”, I mean that society as a whole just goes to hell in a handbasket. There is rampant crime and violence, education is a joke, everyone is poor except for a few wealthy folks who crush their inferiors… you get the idea. >>
… and this is different from the current situation in the United States, exactly how?
I don’t see Libertarianism and US style democracy as incpmapatible at all. I find them VERY compatible.
I consider myself a small “l” libertarian (too many fruitcakes on the capital “L” side) and could see a libertarian state in the US with pretty much the (original) constituion intact. Cut out the slavery parts, of course. It wouldn’t be a huge change for the way things were in the 19th century (fed gov’t expenditures closer to 2% of GDP instead of 20%).
To your point, though, if it didn’t work I’d figure out why and bail out and rethink the whole thing. I wouldn’t claim, like lefties do, that socialism would work if people just gave it a chance, or that people were not good enough for the belief system.
Whether it works is of no concern to me. Liberty is and end worthy unto itself, regardless of the consequences. My liberty should not be conditioned on whether having it leads to good results for anybody else. There is no possible outcomes or consequences that would justify establishing an authoritarian government, because such a government is intrinsically wrong regardless of the sort of world it creates.
That said, I doubt there would be “rampant violence” or a great disparity in economic class any more extreme than today. What government there would still be would be focused almost entirely on enforcing the freedoms of life, liberty, and property. Theft, violence against the person, fraud, and coercion would be about the only things the government would be trying to combat, and so I’d expect success in deterring them.
<< Theft, violence against the person, fraud, and coercion would be about the only things the government would be trying to combat, and so I’d expect success in deterring them. >.
That’s not the point. You weigh the rightness of a government by what it’s consequences are, “how screwed up it got.” I and other libertarians measure the rightness of a government by what actions it takes, without regard to the consequences. Don’t assume everyone in the world is a consequentialist who will excuse almost anything if it turns out alright.
I think it would have good consequences, but I might be wrong. If I was, I would admit that, but I wouldn’t withdraw my support. My support is based on the idea that government actions are right and wrong regardless of the consequences they lead to. It’s not a matter of holding out faith in the libertarian system, it’s about making a determination that the libertarian system is intrinsically right for reasons other than it’s consequences. Consequences are not the only way of examining the rightness of something.
I don’t know who you’ve been talking to about Libertaria, but you’ve got some misconceptions. Libertaria is not just anarchism, or even anarcho-capitalism (though I think that latter system has some merit to it.) Every libertarian I know would readily admit that the justice system, or some semblance of it, would need to be in place to protect the people’s liberties in situations in which they cannot do so themselves. Some of the civil suits could no doubt be funded by court fees. I assume some of it would have to be funded through collections. This would emphatically not be through an income tax or property taxes, which quite clearly amount to theft and confiscation. I assume it would be funded as all government activity was funded through most of our nation’s history, excise taxes. Excise taxes are essentially a usage fee, a charge for the privilege of docking at our ports and trading with our people, and thus are wholly voluntary and do not infringe on anybody’s property rights. We already have such taxes, and likely we would even be able to reduce the excise tax overall because of the great reduction in expenses.
You can’t just set up a straw man Libertaria and beat it down and go “haha, gotcha ya!” Maybe it’s a good idea to more clearly define what we’re all talking about before we start saying “this or that is mularkey, it would never work.”
You have asked, as you well know, a very loaded question. You seem to assume that “Liberteria” would be formed overnight. As much as I would like to see it happen in my lifetime, I would imagine that we’d have to phase things in over a period of time. That would allow a lot of experimenting, especially if various states were allowed to try different approaches.
I don’t belive that people have to be forced to do good, and the gov’t shouldn’t be in the do-good business. It should be in the prevention of harm business. If welfare, for example, were eliminated over a period of time, I have no doubt that churches and other private instutions would step up and fill in the gaps. And, do a hell of a lot better job to boot. Right now it’s easy for people to just say, hey, I’ve already given enough to the poor thru my taxes and it just gets wasted anyway.
I agree wholeheartedly. The ends certainly don’t always justify the means. That in mind though, to those who share RexDart’s opinion: How do you view those who continue to support communism, in spite of how it has fared globally (ie, complete and utter failure)? While Libertarianism and Communism are pretty much ideological opposites, I see some similarities in the idealism espoused in each philosophy, in that they represent extremes. Libertarianism is complete lack of government control, communism is supreme government control. Given that Communism has been demonstrated to be unworkable, would you think highly of those that continued to push for it, inasmuch as they are idealists who refuse to compromise their ideals, even in the face of failure? Or do you generally view them as fools who have buried their heads in the sand?
Jeff
I don’t think it’s the “failure” of communism that makes it wrong. Those that push for it do so because they believe it is morally right. However, those people are much more frustrated by the outcomes, because communism after all is an outcome-based philosophy. If it doesn’t make everyone materially equal, then it isn’t really communism. So communists have alot more at issue when they look at the consequences.
I think very poorly of communists for another reason altogether: they’re working very hard to enslave me to an authoritarian government. Anybody who tries to make me a slave, I don’t exactly think fondly of that person. You wouldn’t ask a black slave in 19th century America whether he admired the persistent idealism of the slaveholding class, would you?
Why? I mean, societal and governmental ideas have to work, right? I mean, once they work, we can choose between them. We can say, “Democracy is better than dictatorship”, or “A cash economy is better than a barter one”, or “Free market capitalism is better than patriarchal mercantalism”, or whatever systems you want to compare, and you can make those arguments on moral grounds, as well as practical ones.
But, if a system doesn’t work, and is so flawed it inherantly can’t work, as the OP suggests, then adopting it would be foolish.
What does it mean that something “works?” You’re making assumptions about what gives a government system validity. Do you think it “works” only if everyone is pretty much comfortable, or that it “works” if it fits a particular notion of justice you hold, or that it “works”…why? What you think is practicable may depend alot on what you think government is supposed to do. For you democracy might be said to work, because it gives people an amount of freedom you think is sufficient and protects various interests that you think ought to be protected. To me, it creates a tyranny of the majority. Does it work? That depends on our preferences.
To take a particular idea of the term “works”, one could answer “does it work” by asking “is it self-sustaining, or will it inevitably be altered through revolution or gradual change?” As such, you may be quite right in asserting that Libertaria would eventually be overthrown by people who want to exert their power over others, people who want to steal from everyone else, people who want to coerce others at the point of a gun. Even if that is inevitable, why shouldn’t I resist it? Should I just accept the fact that governments as we now know them put a gun to my head and rob me on a daily basis, just because that government uses my money to buy off the lower classes and prevent them from revolting and making things worse? Democracy may be self-sustaining and ward off revolution, with a few tweaks here and there (though I’m not so sure about that, we seem to be sliding more and more authoritarian every day, in both economics and personal freedoms), but does that mean we must prefer it to a system which better meets our notions of right and wrong, even though our preferred system may not survive long? I will continue to support libertarian principles because they’re right, and if Libertaria were established I would resist any attempt to return to other forms of government, all of which are based ultimately on force and coercion.
If by “loaded question” you mean I’m asking so as to be able to say, “Ha ha! That answer sucks, and here’s why!”, you’re mistaken. I’m not looking for a particular answer, nor to I necessarily consider any answer wrong, whether or not I agree with the philosophy behind it.
The main reason I asked is because I believe in libertarian principles, but I’m skeptical that a truly libertarian society could function very well. My personal belief is that if society A is more ideological pure than society B, but everyone is “happier” (define “happier” as you see fit) in society B, then B is probably the way to go, even if you have to push some of your ideals aside. That’s the reason I’m a small “L” libertarian, instead of a large “L” libertarian. I was just wondering how others felt.
As far as Libertaria just poofing into existence, you’re partially correct - the US would need to phase it in gradually. However, I’m of the opinion that if we ever do see a true Libertaria, it won’t be the US - in fact, it won’t be anywhere that already has a strong system of government. Experience has led me to believe that governments become more complex over time, not less, and given how simple the premises of Libertarianism are, I think that the only way we’ll see it come about is through revolution, or the formation of a completely new society. That being said, I’d certainly love to see the US turn into a sort of Libertaria-Lite.
Jeff
