Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

[variant]

I can't argue with your experience, but that's not consistent with my own. I do wonder, if these "anarchocapitalist" types would agree with that designation.

I am using their terminology.

I am talking about the David Friedmans of the world:
David D. Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having read "the machinery of freedom" available free via pdf on-line, which might interest you:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...LGgbgC&usg=AFQjCNGPz2MMvkCqQduhku6vq0AKhFxPUg

Fair enough. But I don't think that this is anything peculiar to libertarians. Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, etc. all seem to have their very vocal idealists who tend to drown out the more moderate voices within their ranks.

Indeed. I think we all fall into the trap of arguing with the absolutist position because it is easier to conceptualize.

The problem of the day, however, is that the majority, at least in the US seems to either support or be apathetic towards increased security and control at the expense of individual liberty. I don't see either of our major political parties voluntarily relinquishing any amount of control any time soon. Instead, I see government that will consistently push the envelope as far as the courts (you know, the courts whose judges they appoint) will allow when it comes to recognizing the inherent limits places on them by the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights and the 13th and 14th Amendments. The proper response to this trend is, I believe, the libertarian one. However, unlike many of my libertarian friends, I can see how even libertarianism could be taken to such an extreme that a more statist response would be in order.

While I take your point and share at least some of your concern.

I don't like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think that government helps organize our society in a fairly critical way so I'm not quite as interested in burning it down as some people.

 

[dies-l]

I am using their terminology.

I am talking about the David Friedmans of the world:
David D. Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having read "the machinery of freedom" available free via pdf on-line, which might interest you:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...LGgbgC&usg=AFQjCNGPz2MMvkCqQduhku6vq0AKhFxPUg

I'll look at that. Just to be clear, though -- libertarian extremism (or anarchocapitalism) is no more representative of libertarians as a whole than the tea party is of Republicans or socialism is of Democrats.

Indeed. I think we all fall into the trap of arguing with the absolutist position because it is easier to conceptualize.

Probably the biggest problem I have in discussing things on CF is that I take a position and then have held against me the fact that other people who have taken the same position have taken it to pretty absurd extremes. This thread is a pretty good example of that. My point is that just because a position is capable of being taken to an absurd extreme doesn't make it wrong.

While I take your point and share at least some of your concern.

I don't like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think that government helps organize our society in a fairly critical way so I'm not quite as interested in burning it down as some people.

Personally, if I were all for the dissolution of government, I'd go with anarchist, instead of libertarian. Like I said before, I'd be happy with the government simply abiding by the US Constitution: limited federal government, freedom of speech and religious expression, freedom from warrantless searches, respect for due process, etc., and not setting aside these principles under the guise of the war on terrorism, anti-discrimination, etc. I'm a firm believer that if our constitutional liberties don't extend to the worst of us (criminals, WBC types, racists, etc.), then they are quite precarious for the rest of us.

 

[variant]

Probably the biggest problem I have in discussing things on CF is that I take a position and then have held against me the fact that other people who have taken the same position have taken it to pretty absurd extremes. This thread is a pretty good example of that. My point is that just because a position is capable of being taken to an absurd extreme doesn't make it wrong.

You would have to understand that most people don't get a lot of experience with ordinary libertarians, so if they mainly get their experience with them through the web they will encounter the most hard core out spoken ones in the bunch.

Personally, if I were all for the dissolution of government, I'd go with anarchist, instead of libertarian. Like I said before, I'd be happy with the government simply abiding by the US Constitution: limited federal government, freedom of speech and religious expression, freedom from warrantless searches, respect for due process, etc., and not setting aside these principles under the guise of the war on terrorism, anti-discrimination, etc. I'm a firm believer that if our constitutional liberties don't extend to the worst of us (criminals, WBC types, racists, etc.), then they are quite precarious for the rest of us.

And we don't really disagree on all that much you're putting forward here.

I know we disagree on the anti-discrimination but in that case I see it as an obvious good that seems to be doing very little objective harm.

 

[Vylo]

Contrast this with North Korea and you have a pretty good look at the extremes.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree with most of what you say here. You're right that big government need not repress liberty. But, I do believe that government can become too big to be able to be effective and respect liberty at the same time. I'd be happy with state and Federal government that abides by US and state constitutions.

I don't know at what point big becomes too big. So I might agree with you, or disagree, depending on which things we think go too far or don't.

I wouldn't totally based such judgements on a constitution though, since constitutions are fallible, and I'd rather live in a just state and change a constitution if it's wrong.

 

[dies-l]

I don't know at what point big becomes too big. So I might agree with you, or disagree, depending on which things we think go too far or don't.

I wouldn't totally based such judgements on a constitution though, since constitutions are fallible, and I'd rather live in a just state and change a constitution if it's wrong.

The reason that I would trust a constitution over the whims of the day is that a constitution is a relatively static document. For example, the US Constitution has only been changed 27 times in 234 years. To me, this is a lot like the reason I try not to make major parenting decisions when I am mad at my kids: in the midst of passion, our decision making is skewed. The whims of the moment often lead to bad policy, so if I am going to choose between the momentary whims of a ruling majority or the relative rationality of a fairly static constitution, I choose the latter.

 

[Paradoxum]

The reason that I would trust a constitution over the whims of the day is that a constitution is a relatively static document. For example, the US Constitution has only been changed 27 times in 234 years. To me, this is a lot like the reason I try not to make major parenting decisions when I am mad at my kids: in the midst of passion, our decision making is skewed. The whims of the moment often lead to bad policy, so if I am going to choose between the momentary whims of a ruling majority or the relative rationality of a fairly static constitution, I choose the latter.

I'd say that you are false to oppose a relatively reasonable constitution to whims. Obviously if it's just a whim then we shouldn't be make any laws based on that. I don't think there is any reason to think new movements are any more likely to be whims than what is in the constitution. If the allowance of slavery got into the constitution, then maybe something else did that we have overlooked until now.

You say it's only been changed 27 times in 234 years, but that is an average of one change every 8.6 years. That's quite often in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying the constitution is terrible, and I don't even have any change in mind while writing this. I'm just saying I'd rather ask what is just, rather than what is constitutional, because the constitution may not be just. It is of course worth seriously considering the worth of what's in the constitution before changing it though.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'd say that you are false to oppose a relatively reasonable constitution to whims. Obviously if it's just a whim then we shouldn't be make any laws based on that. I don't think there is any reason to think new movements are any more likely to be whims than what is in the constitution. If the allowance of slavery got into the constitution, then maybe something else did that we have overlooked until now.

You say it's only been changed 27 times in 234 years, but that is an average of one change every 8.6 years. That's quite often in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying the constitution is terrible, and I don't even have any change in mind while writing this. I'm just saying I'd rather ask what is just, rather than what is constitutional, because the constitution may not be just. It is of course worth seriously considering the worth of what's in the constitution before changing it though.

How would you decide what is just for the entire society? Who gets to make those decisions? The majority by direct vote? A panel of experts? An elected board of representatives? A charismatic autocrat? An ancient text of religious beliefs? Yourself? People that agree with your personal definition of just?
Constitutions, and governments for that matter, ought not to pretend to deliver justice. They do not have that ability. What is just to one person turns out to be considered a grave injustice by another. Every tyrannical government in history was run by people that sincerely believed they were just and moral and that their actions were evidence of that. IMO the proper role of a Constitution is to set up the form of government and to describe the limits of its power so as to keep the government from becoming the principle oppressor in society. Governments, by their very nature, will always have access to more raw coercive power than any other segment of society and therefore those in charge of it will always be in a position to force their will upon the populace. As long as those in charge of government are moral, tolerant of opposition, willing to admit their own fallibility and not intoxicated by the power they wield there is no problem. How many in power fit that description? In order to assure the present and future generations of a government that is not out of control, constitutions attempt to limit the amount of damage a government can do when sincere principled leaders with strongly held beliefs decide that the ends justify the means. It is only an attempt because without opposition a leader or group of leaders can simply ignore a constitution because " Our cause is just and those that would oppose us are not only wrong and evil for opposing what is obviously just but haven't enough power or the will to stop us."

 

[KarateCowboy]

Libertarian Utopia or Libertarian Paradise are nonsense terms.

That is one of the core principles of libertarianism: there is no utopia. Life is hard, life sucks, then you die. Of course "Libertarian Utopia" is a nonsense term; it's anathema to libertarianism.

 

[stamperben]

That is one of the core principles of libertarianism: there is no utopia. Life is hard, life sucks, then you die. Of course "Libertarian Utopia" is a nonsense term; it's anathema to libertarianism.

I suppose we are saying that it isn't so good under the libertarian flag then, much as the author in the OP related to us about his experience.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I suppose we are saying that it isn't so good under the libertarian flag then, much as the author in the OP related to us about his experience.

The libertarian is just being realistic knowing that governments will not solve their problems and preferring to avoid the extra oppression that government will add to life by trying to "fix": things. The biggest difference between libertarians and the isms that have that childlike and childish belief in a utopian society is that libertarians never claim they can deliver such a thing while those other isms do claim they can and if you don't agree that their idea of utopia is really all that great they will make sure that you get a visit from someone from the government to reeducate you or maybe they will just shoot you.

 

[stamperben]

The libertarian is just being realistic knowing that governments will not solve their problems and preferring to avoid the extra oppression that government will add to life by trying to "fix": things. The biggest difference between libertarians and the isms that have that childlike and childish belief in a utopian society is that libertarians never claim they can deliver such a thing while those other isms do claim they can and if you don't agree that their idea of utopia is really all that great they will make sure that you get a visit from someone from the government to reeducate you or maybe they will just shoot you.

Another way of saying that life as it is in Belize, with what amounts to no government, works just fine?

It's a simple question.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Another way of saying that life as it is in Belize, with what amounts to no government, works just fine?

It's a simple question.

I have no idea what life is like in Belize and would be a fool to pretend I do, not ever having lived there.

I do have a number of friends and acquaintances that are there at this very moment and will return in about a week . When they return I will be sure to ask their opinion on the subject. If you like,I will relay that opinion to you.

I'm no anarchist.Generally speaking I think we need government because we would prey on each other so much more without it. We also need to keep it in check and keep it from being worse than having no government at all. The best way to keep it in check is to make sure there are hard and fast rules that government is required to follow. Government at rare times can be a positive force but much more often than not it is an oppressor. It does not seem possible for government's to assist one group without doing so by not only punishing but demonizing another. Pretending that it is possible to create a utopia and attempting to do so often leads to a situation where government's oppressive tendencies are given full leeway to assert themselves.

 

[stamperben]

I have no idea what life is like in Belize and would be a fool to pretend I do, not ever having lived there.

I do have a number of friends and acquaintances that are there at this very moment and will return in about a week . When they return I will be sure to ask their opinion on the subject. If you like,I will relay that opinion to you.

I'm no anarchist.Generally speaking I think we need government because we would prey on each other so much more without it. We also need to keep it in check and keep it from being worse than having no government at all. The best way to keep it in check is to make sure there are hard and fast rules that government is required to follow. Government at rare times can be a positive force but much more often than not it is an oppressor. It does not seem possible for government's to assist one group without doing so by not only punishing but demonizing another. Pretending that it is possible to create a utopia and attempting to do so often leads to a situation where government's oppressive tendencies are given full leeway to assert themselves.

We don't have to wait for your friends. I linked to a piece in the OP from someone who was there. But if you like, see what your acquaintances have to say.
My original question:

I suppose we are saying that it isn't so good under the libertarian flag then, much as the author in the OP related to us about his experience.
​

was more directed to the marital arts cowboy. I am encouraged however that you DO see the need for government, and in that see it's need at times to intervene in the affairs of the state of the nation. We as a people have fairly well failed at helping our fellow citizen in his time of need. Again and again.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I suppose we are saying that it isn't so good under the libertarian flag then, much as the author in the OP related to us about his experience.

Well, classical liberalism and libertarianism are cognizant of a few truths of human nature. One is that people are happier when tending to their own needs than being dependent. Another is that the animated contest of freedom and independence is more empowering and digniifying than the posh tranquility of servitude; id est, people are generally happier when running their own lives.

In recognition that life is harsh and hard and unfair, classical liberalism posits that by seeking an optimum amount of freedom for people to run their own lives then society may achieve its optimum amount of happiness, as each man is free to live his life as makes him happy. That's why the immortal words: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

As far as Belize: while their lives are not as posh or convenient as ours, I think it is reasonable to say that while they are not wealthy, wealth does not equate to happiness. It is also important to look at the amount of civil strife. Finally, their lack of infrastructure, tiny population, population density, and many other things are all worth examining.

PS: It's also worth mentioning that the great Milton Friedman said time and time again: a free market does not guarantee wealth and prosperity, however it is required for wealth and prosperity. I think one of the most common myths about classical liberalism is that it teaches that a free market guarantees prosperity; it does not guarantee it, but rather facilitates it.

 

[Paradoxum]

How would you decide what is just for the entire society? Who gets to make those decisions? The majority by direct vote? A panel of experts? An elected board of representatives? A charismatic autocrat? An ancient text of religious beliefs? Yourself? People that agree with your personal definition of just?

I don't know, maybe we should disband the government and return to chaos?

I always find these questions to be rather silly. You use your brain to figure out what is just, and then you convince other people in a democracy to agree. Humans rights are a thing too to consider.

Maybe you were asking a genuine question, and in that case sorry, and I hope you don't take it as an insult. I find just find such questions imply that we should give up trying to make a decent society.

Constitutions, and governments for that matter, ought not to pretend to deliver justice. They do not have that ability.

Whether constitutions and governments should claim to be just (or attempting just government in their own fallible way) is debatable, but the people voting should be voting based on what they think is a just political and legal system. Just in the sense of legal justice, not moral justice.

What is just to one person turns out to be considered a grave injustice by another. Every tyrannical government in history was run by people that sincerely believed they were just and moral and that their actions were evidence of that.

I agree that people disagree.

IMO the proper role of a Constitution is to set up the form of government and to describe the limits of its power so as to keep the government from becoming the principle oppressor in society. Governments, by their very nature, will always have access to more raw coercive power than any other segment of society and therefore those in charge of it will always be in a position to force their will upon the populace. As long as those in charge of government are moral, tolerant of opposition, willing to admit their own fallibility and not intoxicated by the power they wield there is no problem. How many in power fit that description? In order to assure the present and future generations of a government that is not out of control, constitutions attempt to limit the amount of damage a government can do when sincere principled leaders with strongly held beliefs decide that the ends justify the means. It is only an attempt because without opposition a leader or group of leaders can simply ignore a constitution because " Our cause is just and those that would oppose us are not only wrong and evil for opposing what is obviously just but haven't enough power or the will to stop us."

I agree that a constitution should limit the government. That doesn't prevent me from saying that constitutions can be wrong, and should be changed if wrong. ie: They may not limit governments correctly.

I'm just saying we should ask what is 'just' first, rather than limit our thoughts by a constitution made by fallible people.

 

[Joykins]

Never occurred to me that anyone would want to live in Belize until Jerry Jeff Walker moved there. He loved it so much he dedicated an entire album to songs about Belize.

My mother says she wants to retire there, but I'm still skeptical. I know they sponsor the Glenn Beck Show and Pat and Stu, but I'd still be worried about the government being taken over by a coup, which is common in those countries.

I used to share an office with a woman who lived in Belize for a few years. Apparently it's a great place to meet other expats, if you like scamsters and drug runners. And you're never really accepted by the Belizeans. But they do speak English, kind of, and it's pretty and warm.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Never occurred to me that anyone would want to live in Belize until Jerry Jeff Walker moved there. He loved it so much he dedicated an entire album to songs about Belize.

Thanks for the reference. I just listened to Jerry Jeff Walker's "Gringo in Belize". He makes a pretty good case for not moving to Belize.

My mother says she wants to retire there, but I'm still skeptical. I know they sponsor the Glenn Beck Show and Pat and Stu, but I'd still be worried about the government being taken over by a coup, which is common in those countries.

It happens.

Here are some good pictures with Jerry Jeff Walker's "Down in Belize":
DownInBelize2.mp4 - YouTube

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, I guess that settles it. Bigger government = better government. Forget Belize; I'm moving to a big government paradise like North Korea. (Crappy arguments work both ways).

Well said.

People tend to demonize ideologies they disagree with by finding an extreme example... much like this article has done.

I've often had similar conversations with people and as soon as you mention that you're a libertarian, they instantly resort to the old standby rebuttal of "well, what about hospitals, bridges, roads, etc... etc..." ...as if it has to be one extreme or the other (anarchy with no infrastructure; or big government)

There's a lot of middle ground between zero taxes and no infrastructure, and where we're at now as a nation.

I think one of our fellow Libertarians, Mr. Penn J, sums it up quite nicely...

Penn Jillette - "Let's talk about bridges after we're out of Afghanistan." - YouTube


I also noticed that you've changed your icon from Democrat to Libertarian (if I'm not confusing you with another poster???)

Welcome aboard

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know at what point big becomes too big.

If you talk to 10 people, you'd probably get 10 answers...

Here's mine...

When the tax code becomes longer and more complex than our constitution


...some other symptoms might include
- laws, so complex in nature, that the average citizen without a law degree can't make sense of them

- when the government is taking a third of a person's income and still operating at a deficit