“We are the true anarchists.” - A fascist in Pierluigi Passolini’s Salo.
Much as the philosophical basis of libertarianism appeals to me, it is total bullshit, hence my adherence to democratic socialism of an old Labour stripe, a proven and effective system, and the only one I know of to show a genuine commitment to low taxation (see Poplarism). To stick to your Libertaria, nothing quite says Liberty like “harsh prison sentences”. As these an ineffective and also a drain on the public purse, not to mention abhorrent to a Libertarian, forget that. In fact, why do you need a government at all? They got by without one in medieval Iceland. The law was enforced on the basis most natural to man, that of bloody vengeance. Think of it as a sort of school playground with heavily armed children and no teachers.
Well, the government will have to have some property for courts and prisons, presumably. Not just criminal courts, but civil courts, right? Because my understanding is that many issues covered by government regulation would be left to tort law to sort out (while many others would just be binned, I guess). Also, to the extent there’s a military, the government will have to have some physical base for running it, as well as housing for troops, or at the very least, some kind of massing point for launching sorties.
Prisons will, of course, be another business. The invisible hand of the market will decide which ones stay in business and which don’t. No government ownership necessary. Presumably, any fellow who decides to run for magistrate will be expected to provide his own court facilities and staff at his own expense should he win election. Court costs are levied today, so in the Libertaria court system, costs could be passed along to the “consumer.”
Any group of Libertarians wishing to be part of the militia could be required to provide their own weapons. Heavy weapons, vehicles, training facilities, etc. etc. etc. have several options.
Subscriptions. Those citizens who wish to be defended by the militia pay a subscription fee (this also works for providing police). Those who don’t subscribe are not defended from the looters, parasites, commies, pinkos, worthless eaters, libtards, rightards, sheeple, weennie-waggers, and panty-sniffers who will constantly be slavering at the borders of Libertaria.
Wealthy militia members may provide these things at their own cost and command that unit as a result. This actually has historical precedent.
Go with more of a rag-tag ad hoc armed mob model as opposed to anything resembling a competent military.
Instead of dismissing it simply by lobbing the word “ridiculous” at it, why don’t to you respond in detail?
What are we missing? All the speculated situations seem fully in line with my understanding of Libertarianism. Where are they not? Please elucidate. Thanks.
See, that’s the thing. Libertarians are all on board with sitting around in leather club chairs, smoking their pipes, and debating into the night how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (more without regulation, obviously). But they’re never willing to address the practical implications of their ivory-tower philosophizing. Ultimately Libertarianism only has value as an abstract philosophy; a philosophical perspective from which to contemplate real-world situations. But it’s like a rare hybrid orchid: it can’t survive in the wild, it can only thrive inside the hothouse, where the temperature, humidity, and lighting are controlled, and where it can be artificially fed and watered by an overseeing intelligence.
A couple things I think Libertarians must willfully overlook in order for their utopia-in-a-vacuum to succeed:[ul]
[li]If you could wave a wand and suddenly make everything all Lib’ian and shit, the infrastructure you’re surrounded by, your starting point, would not exist if L’ism had always been the ruling party. So to the extent that L’ism might work, it could only do so if it inherited an infrastructure created by non-L’s. It can rent, but it can’t build.[/li][li]How messed up is it–and how can you possibly justify–that, as far as I understand it (open to correction), only individuals are subject to the rule of law. Once you’re a company, or a corporation, you are completely outside the law. Major oil spill? Accident, could happen to anyone. Don’t like it? Don’t buy BP oil! Coal mining accident, kills dozens? Just an accident. This conferring of divine infallibility on business and property, while washing your hands of any responsibility toward other human beings, just boggles me. Who could possibly get behind such a philosophy?[/li][li]A Lib’s favorite ooga-booga word is coercion. But they define it as narrowly as possible. Taxes are coercive because if you don’t pay them, you go to jail. Etc. But there’s more than one way to take away a person’s choices or control: there are unwritten forms of coercion. There’s the selective limiting of opportunity, thus coercing some into situations over which they have no control. There’s economic coercion. And how, really, is the kind of blackmail that market-healthcare represents–give us cash in a bag or your kidney gets it–not exactly the same kind of coercion as laws that provide penalties for not paying taxes, or that tell you what kind of business you can open in a residential neighborhood? (And of course it’s not coercion if it’s wielded by a corporation; only by an elected government.)[/li][/ul]I could of course go on. But the more I consider it, the clearer it is to me that L’ism is not really a serious philosophy. It’s a childish fantasy of getting your candy bar but not having to pay for it. It’s the ultimate liberal fantasy, actually: a sense of total entitlement. You should be able to have your cake, eat it, keep all your money, not pay taxes–and (insert unexplained miracle here) still live within a decent infrastructure.
To tell the truth, I think it’s an academic exercise as I don’t see any plausible way of moving from our current system to a Libertarian one that doesn’t involve extreme coercion. Which, naturally, would ruin the entire thing.
Realistically Libertarianism will have to wait until either the founding of a new country, either through creation of an artificial island, destruction of an existing one by natural disaster or war, or space colonisation.
