About half the Libertarian-vs.-the-board threads on political subjects seem to repeat the question “Yeah, but would a Libertarian society work in real life?”
The answer is yes. We have historical precedent.
I’ve recently been reading a book loaned me by a coworker, an economist with fascinating insights into society and a quirky sense of humor, which traces the pre- and post-colonization social and cultural systems of four waves of English/British pre-Revolutionary settlers in America.
Third section deals with Pennsylvania and the Quakers. And the author convincingly makes the case that Penn instituted, and the Quaker “governing class” of the colony effectively carried on, what he calls “reciprocal libertarianism.”
This is to be distinguished from doctrinaire libertarianism of the theorists, but only in degree. The basic principle on which Penna. was governed in Quaker times was, “Whatever you would not be compelled to do or restrained from doing, do not institute laws to compel or restrain others. If there be any thing in which you feel that others must be restrained, accept meekly that you also must be restrained in the same way.”
By careful manipulation of where the incoming peoples were settled (Those with similar worldviews such as German Pietists allowed to take land in eastern Penna., others with divergent worldviews sent further west or to other colonies), the Quaker leadership of the colony was able to keep this rather amenable polity in place for most of the eighteenth century. It apparently went down the tubes, along with many other colonial liberties, in George III’s period of personal rule.
The book is home, and nothing I’d ever run into before. I’ll try to remember to bring in a reference.
a) Quakers are a homogenous society with very similar tennets and ideals.
b) It is a relatively small group compared to say the entire country of America.
I’m not saying that I don’t want to see libertarianism fluorish but I suspect that it faces similar ideological barriers as Olentzero’s belief that a socialist/communist system can be a success on a scale bigger than a kibbutz. The only difference being which part of society will resist the application of either of these phylosophies.
But it was Penn’s land, by Royal charter. (And let’s not get into Indian land rights on this thread, please!) And his agents could pick and choose whom to sell what to:
“Ah, Philipp Nikolai’s nephew, farmer and musician? Got a nice parcel in Lancaster County, right near a colony of your people. Lutheran lay evangelist and ironworker? We’ve got a special deal on parcels west of the Alleghenies, where they’re starting up foundries…fifty acres for the price of twenty! Sign right here… Hmmm, devout Presbyterian looking for a place to found God’s Kingdom where the elect will live in accordance with His Laws? Uh, no parcels available at the moment. But you might try Lord Baltimore’s agent or Lord Fairfax’s agent, two and three doors down the street. Have a nice day!”
Quite libertarian to me, provided you control the land. :rolleyes:
This is not to criticize Penn. But it would no longer answer your original question, which was “Yeah, but would a Libertarian society work in real life?”
It seems to me that the cited example existed in a world so different from today’s as to be irrelevant to the question. Even an isolated Libertarian enclave in present-day Pennsylvania would have to resort to non-Libertarian practices in order to maintain its isolation; it would have to dictate the conditions of its unreal world within the real world.
Your point is well made. However, I was not idealistically proposing that the Penna. commonwealth be adopted lock, stock, and barrelstaves, for today’s America. I was simply identifying that a functional libertarian society has existed at one time and place, under specific circumstances.
How to adapt that to today’s world? Well, get a venture capital partnership of well-to-do libertarians together and have them buy up a fairly large island (except for any landholders willing to buy into the idea). Sell or rent the land, on reasonable terms, to people who want to live under a libertarian society. Assure some degree of autonomy from whatever nation holds the island under its allegiance, specifying in general the terms under which the island will be run. Use the Penna. definition for starters; spell out the distinctions from it as needed.
As noted, the point of this thread was not to advocate a Libertaria, just to illustrate that it had been done successfully – a matter on which Libertarian (the poster) and other libertarian posters have been challenged in the past. Ceteris paribus, and all that stuff. You want a 21st Century Libertarian State? – then figure out what adaptations to their formula need to be made.
Of course my immediate reaction, being way non-Libertarian, is to point out that functional totalitarian dictatorships have existed at one time and place, too; that don’t mean it’s a sane alternative. I’d also point out that, like most totalitarian dictatorships, the cited example didn’t function for very long, thereby perhaps proving the assertion wrong. If not, how long would it have to survive in order to qualify as “functional” in a practical sense? Are there dates for this example? Surely someone has done a website about them?
In any case, since to be a Libertarian is, In my HUMBLEST opinion, to have a vastly oversimplified view of the world, a functioning Libertarian society in the far simpler context of the 18th century is entirely (to be redundant) irrelevant to any similar, even theoretical, situation in today’s world.
Sorry, Polycarp: I see my post seems to suggest that you’re proposing such a society, and I did in fact see in your earlier post that you’re not. Sorry for not writing more clearly.
I would like to let Lib. or Satan respond regarding how a libertarian commonwealth might work in real life. I know Lib. in particular has addressed the issue of controlling the non-peaceful, dishonest element of society in such a political structure. Suffice it for me to say that the idea of a utopian culture, doomed to fail by not taking human nature into account, is not what they’re speaking of. My own inclinations are to be pragmatically libertarian but slightly more towards state-liberalism because of the obvious flaws in our own society. (Some of which you have addressed in no uncertain terms, Lissener.) Something like “the least government that gets the job done – but be sure you don’t need this piece to ‘get the job done’ before you discard it.”
Oh, you WOULD! How about answering my dinner invitation over in MPSIMS before invoking me in debates, okay?
Now, to answer your question, I am afraid that I will come off as a poser, because I don’t think a total Libertarian society would work - not for very long, and not before a small handful of people who were neither peaceful nor honest fuck it up for everyone.
Ultimattely, I am a social Libertarian - someone who believes in the ideology s far as personal civil liberties which seem to be encroached upon more and more every year.
Ultimately, I want this platform to be pushed and have it be integrated into one of the other parties within the constraints of our current representative constitutional republic; not to overthrow what we have for something I don’t think in and of itself will work.
Of course, if a more hardcore Libertarian, instead of the wishy-washy guy I am, can come along and make a case that this will work in spite of my concerns, I am open to the idea.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, four weeks, one day, 22 hours, 33 minutes and 36 seconds.
6077 cigarettes not smoked, saving $759.70.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 hours, 25 minutes.
Liberatarianism would work because it depends on a basic human trait: Self-interest. It is in my self-interest to cooperate with others because if I don’t I’ll get creamed financially and socially. It is in my self-interest to refrain from self-destructive behaviors because if I don’t, I’ll self-destruct. It is in my self-interest to be peaceful because conflict takes more energy and resources than I’d earn as a result. It is this self-interest that keeps things going from day-to-day, really. If most people were irrational enough to think murder and non-cooperation were the way to solve problems, humanity would not have survived long and we definitely would not have gone beyond tribes with strongmen as rulers. Most people are rational. Those who aren’t can be singled out and punished.
Which is EXACTLY why it wouldn’t work. People are also very good at cutting off their noses to spite their faces with alarming regularity. It’s even easier to cut off your neighbors nose…
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, four weeks, one day, 23 hours, 29 minutes and 48 seconds.
6079 cigarettes not smoked, saving $759.89.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 hours, 35 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)
Satan, most people are not idiots. Most people will abide by the rules because they don’t want to be punished, by others or by the circumstances they get themselves into. If most people were not rational, the world would not work at all.
I am aware that most people are not idiots. I am aware that most people will abide by reasonable rules. When did I say otherwise? What about the exact quote “a small handful of people who were neither peaceful nor honest fuck it up for everyone” says anything different?
I just happen to believe that it doesn’t take many assholes to wreck this perfect little utopia, and in fact a handful could do much damage to a colony, no matter how peaceful and honest the remainder of them are.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, four weeks, two days, 38 minutes and 28 seconds.
6081 cigarettes not smoked, saving $760.13.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 hours, 45 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)
