Inspired by a post (#458128) by @Undisciplined, I have a different set of questions for libertarians. Before jumping in, here is some context: I used to be a pretty ardent libertarian. I even led an econ club that brought in bob murphy to my university back in the day. I also wrote for a couple libertarian/free market facebook pages that had large followings (wish I was earning sats on some of those posts). I have since disassociated with libertarianism despite largely overlapping views.
  1. How can libertarians articulate that the benefit of eliminating all government is worth the risk?
People are risk averse. Going from big government to small is relatively low risk. Going from small government to no government is high risk. Given that most people are not enamored by the non-aggression principle, what is the route to making a convincing argument?
  1. Can a proper constitution that is carried out dutifully by a central government increase human flourishing?
I think there are market solutions for most things, if not all things, that the government does. I am opposed to the FDA, as an example. In theory, it would be easy for a private firm to fill this role. That said - I have some severe food allergies and knowing that there are regulations around that makes my life easier. I don't want to have to research every product I buy just to determine if I can trust their food label. The amount of time (costs) that this would take me could be enormous. And even if there is a firm that I trust, I have to be sure they maintain their integrity overtime. This is a small and potentially silly example, but if profits are the only thing regulating companies, I will spend a ton of time researching which companies I want to give my money to.
  1. Is libertarianism - or maybe the non-aggression principle - a legitimate movement/principle if libertarians cannot agree on whether throwing a baby into the ocean ought to be a crime?
  2. How can libertarians change the image that is conjured in people's mind when they hear the word libertarian?
A lot of people hear libertarian and they think of the people followed in the documentary-series the anarchists on HBO. This delegitimizes the movement more broadly.
5a) What can libertarians do now to make a highly limited government more feasible to the broader population?
Again, people are risk averse. Saying the market will find a solution is not likely to sway a bunch of people who might be worried about feeding their family. It might not be feasible for people who are comfortable and would need to risk that comfort.
5b) What needs to be done before an anarcho-capitalist society is feasible?
If the U.S. became an anarcho capitalist society tomorrow, it would be a global disaster that would ultimately lead to more government for everyone What needs to be done for that not to be the case?
5c) Is the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism path dependent?
How does the existence of giant corporations, criminal enterprises, and other things that thrive under the government inhibit the reasonability of eliminating the government? Sure, maybe if there never was a government giant corporations and criminal enterprises wouldn't exist. But they do exist and assuming they will just go away without the government doesn't seem feasible. Especially since things that are a function of their network size would be very difficult to disrupt (like social media).
Maybe solid answers exist, but back when I was getting into debates with libertarians the only answers I got were that the market would solve the problems.
As noted in a different post, my aim is not to debate anyone. I am legitimately interested in hearing different perspectives.
this territory is moderated
How can libertarians articulate that the benefit of eliminating all government is worth the risk?
This depends heavily on the individual who needs to be convinced:
  • Conservatives generally get that the state is wasteful and undermines civil society, so try to convince them that the same is true of the military and police.
  • Progressives generally get that corporate interests hijack the government and use it for their own ends, so try to convince them that the same will happen with all the utopian programs they want to begin.
Can a proper constitution that is carried out dutifully by a central government increase human flourishing?
Short-term, sure. Long-term, maybe. We've seen the US government morph from the smallest government in history to the largest, so I'm skeptical of constitutional constraints. However, I have no idea how to evaluate the relevant counterfactuals.
Is libertarianism - or maybe the non-aggression principle - a legitimate movement/principle if libertarians cannot agree on whether throwing a baby into the ocean ought to be a crime?
I'm going to allege straw man on that one, but it's also a valid point. There's a lot of disagreement about exactly what constitute NAP violations. However, these are generally highly contrived edge cases and it's not like other legal frameworks don't have their own unpalatable outcomes.
How can libertarians change the image that is conjured in people's mind when they hear the word libertarian?
Convert more regular people. Bitcoin has this problem too.
What can libertarians do now to make a highly limited government more feasible to the broader population?
Tell people "Told ya so." as the wheels come off.
What needs to be done before an anarcho-capitalist society is feasible?
As much as I would love to see this, it probably needs to be phased in. We need voluntary civic organizations to reestablish themselves as the state rolls back its entitlement programs, before ripping the band-aid off entirely.
Is the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism path dependent?
I think we could see many societies fail to get off the ground, if they don't start from the right foundation.
The scenario I've thought about a lot is dedicating an island to an ancap experiment. What immediately comes to mind is that it will just be overrun with all the degeneracy currently outlawed by the state. The issue isn't that a libertarian society must look like that, but rather that the entire global demand for such behavior will be supplied in one spot, while all the legal behavior stays where it is.
I think the path of anarcho-capitalism has to be one where a fairly large area adopts it and ideally many nations will have moved in a libertarian direction as well.
reply
I'm going to allege straw man on that one, but it's also a valid point
I almost took it out - but I decided to include it because it was on the list you provided. Admittedly not sure what the broader context is from Bob Murphy's perspective. Though I think more generally the loud libertarians on the internet debating things like this does a disservice to the movement.
Convert more regular people.
I think in general this is true, but not at the heart of the matter. I have not been very close to this topic the last few years so I could be wrong, but I think part of difficulty of converting more people is the image. I remember back in my facebook days a pretty popular libertarian on social media was just railing against the evil government because she got a DWI (as if private companies wouldn't be better at enforcing this). All that does is perpetuate the myth that libertarians are just people who want to conduct in illegal activities with impunity.
While I recognize there are idiots and terrible people in all "groups", other ones have the benefit of being mainstream. That is to say the fringe are seen as fringe and not representative of the broader group. Libertarianism does not have that liberty.
Tell people "Told ya so." as the wheels come off.
I really hope this is all that is needed.
We need voluntary civic organizations to reestablish themselves as the state rolls back its entitlement programs
My thoughts exactly - and I think it applies to the above about limited government as well. Or maybe with respect to limited government it is how we get to a limited government without the wheels needing to fall off. More broadly, libertarians often say "rich people care about the poor and will step up without the government." I just don't think people buy it. People see billionaires and millionaires living lavish lifestyles without doing much for the poor so I think they receive this claim with a heavy amount of skepticism.
I recognize that rich people do a lot for the poor already, however. Especially at the local level. Unfortunately the media has no incentive to cover this.
I think we could see many societies fail to get off the ground, if they don't start from the right foundation
I wonder what the right foundation is.
Your comment about islands made me think of something i often ponder about science funding.
We spend billions on ever more powerful particle colliders and muon colliders (or whatever nima is proposing now) and I wonder what the marginal value to society is. I don't doubt we benefit from technological advancements that went into building the LHC for example, but I also wonder what we missed out on had that money been spent elsewhere.
Imagine the learning we could generate if we did some sort of randomized control trial separating people into different societal structures. An island with no government, an island with a communist government, and island with a huge welfare state, and etc., and then observe how the society evolves.
reply
I went from anarcho capitalism to libertarian, as soon as I started working in manufacturing.
It simply isn't feasible. Standards must be tested and acknowledged in order to know what you buy is what you get.
Terms and condition, insurance, legal district etc are almost impossible to do without.
reply
Standards must be tested and acknowledged in order to know what you buy is what you get.
Why do you need men with guns to accomplish this?
Terms and condition, insurance, legal district etc are almost impossible to do without.
Those sound like problems many automation-fearing careers depend on to solve.
reply
It isn't men with guns that do the testing, it's the experts, test labs etc. It's the gov job to demand what special labelling etc is needed for what type of products, it's their job to establish what defines as "biodegradable", so not everyone can just follow X conditions and results based on what they like.
There are national and international standards, all of which require a level of authority to establish and for the entire manufacturing sector to be able to comply.
And no, you can list out 50 clauses etc by default, bringing an artwork file to physical products, each with different characteristics and tolerance just aren't that simple
Even colour matching can be extremely complex across different product types.
Automation also doesn't solve cross border legal dispute, if supplier A followed their own definition of red colour and you asked for bright red, who's at fault and without a gov, are you gonna fly there and negotiate? And if your client think it should be another shade just to mess with you, what you gonna do?
I have worked at least over 20 product types, high tech to promotional merch. None of it is easy and it is ever changing.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 12 Mar
Is the discussion about what is feasible or about what is true?
If it's about feasible, the term for that is utilitarianism. Not libertarianism, voluntarism, nor anarchy.
reply
The libertarian vision, unlike the anarcho-capitalist one, is compatible with the existence of a government. Personally, I also don't believe things can function with absolutely zero government (although I often say that if I had to choose between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, I would choose the former as it's more ethical). At the end of the day, governments should represent the will and consent of the people, and as you rightly pointed out, not all will and consent can be expressed through market prices. So, the issue isn't governments per se but how they are implemented: too large, influential, detached from the actual will/control of the people, and most importantly and dangerously, they have control over money manipulation.
reply
I have always said if I am going to be a utopian - and in my view anarcho anything is utopian - that I might as well be a communist.
Utopia 1 - I have to compete in a free market to survive. Utopia 2 - I get to enjoy hobbies all day with zero consequence.
reply
if I had to choose between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, I would choose the former as it's more ethical).
OMG... We are not gonna make it.
reply
Would you choose anarcho-communism? Why? I though we were aligned on this...
reply
anarcho-communism?
That it doesn't exist. It's a total stupidity.
reply
I see the term "libertarian" outdated, fade, empty. When you say "libertarian" I see only another politician that want a smaller gov. FUCK THAT SHIT ! We do not need any gov, any politician. Just pure free-market.
So no, I do not "identify" as libertarian, I am pure anarco-capitalist, no fucking government is needed. You can call me more as "voluntaryst".
reply
I agree. I think OP it talking about "Libertarian" (big L) which is just a state-ist with special rules. Down with the state, fuck the government.
reply
OK, so without a government whatsoever, how do you coordinate the efforts of people at large scale?
reply
Here is an example of people that can organize WITHOUT any government. https://v.nostr.build/oB4R.mp4
reply
Why would I need at large scale? Why I can't do it in my local community and slowly expand? Take example of Bitcoin. Did Bitcoin need a central gov to coordinate the efforts? NO. Govs are totally useless. People can organize themselves in many other ways and have consensus.
reply
In this alternative society, how would it be able to produce high tech?
Things like computer chips, airplanes, etc.
You need a large infrastructure supporting industries like that.
Sure, you can live a pre-industrial life without a government, but many people won't want to live that kind of life.
reply
Did a gov build all of that? NO. People did, with PRIVATE resources. Please stop kissing gov ass. Be a real free man, that stand the ground against tyranny. Don't be a pussy shitizen, crying like a bitch.
reply
I have since disassociated with libertarianism despite largely overlapping views.
That means you were never a true freedom fighter. You just play around and didn't understand the true meaning of being free. Once you know what is true freedom, you will never let it go. You fight for it, until death. So what are you now ? A communist ?
Here are answered all your questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircn5bJfTEU
reply
Ok, bud.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 12 Mar
I stopped calling myself any label several years ago. If you think about it labels can be useful when they are broadly understood. But libertarianism is not. Not only that, it is very diverse and I actually disagree with massive wings of the movement. So, there is little reason for me to use the term. Labels also give people an easy way to pigeon hole you into a box. This used to happen to me as a young Republican before I wised up and realized what a joke that movement is and how full it is with moral and logical inconsistencies.
reply
Same. If someone asked me to identify an ideology that most closely reflects my views, it would probably be libertarianism. I just can't bring myself to call myself a libertarian anymore though.
reply
I think your questions 5a-5c are the heart of the matter; they also seem to be the least discussed or even acknowledged.
My hot take: I generally find the taxation is theft and related conversations tiresome because, however you feel about the issue, the kind of aggregate entities that impose taxes have wiped the floor with other forms of organizations at scale. Hand-to-hand combat could be considered, by some standards, to be more moral. And yet warfare is not a morality contest. The race is not always to the swift, etc.
A more interesting question is: are there alternatives possible that can, practically and empircally, pose an alternative, given that there is a very concrete survivability question in play? So far the answer seems no.
Some think btc will usher in this glorious age, as per the asymmetries between attack / defense described in The Sovereign Individual, but I am not among that number.
reply
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
The initial questions are more about image and social reputation. I think you do give up some social capital identifying as a libertarian these days. I don't think that was the case when I was an undergrad.
are there alternatives possible that can, practically and empircally, pose an alternative, given that there is a very concrete survivability question in play?
This is how I should have worded question 1. To me, "worth the risk" means survivability. This implications being the expected value of eliminating the government is exceptionally low, even if the worst case scenario has low probability.
If bitcoin is the digital gold - why would expectations under bitcoin be meaningfully different than life/society under the gold standard? That's a head scratcher.
reply
That's a head scratcher.
It was one of the biggest head-scratchers for me for a long time. You can find some modest and realistic explanation in Lyn Alden's book about how btc corrects the gap that had grown up between the speed of transaction and the speed of settlement (we talk about it in the book club someplace) and that will, I believe, be a real change, though what it will mean in practice is hard to say. Certainly we did not live in a utopia when money was sound and settlement and transaction were equally slow.
Mostly, though, I think it's utopian thinking, which is pretty easy to spot and useful to examine critically.
reply
  1. Can a proper constitution that is carried out dutifully by a central government increase human flourishing?
No, if someone can legally use force to rob you and get stuff for free, they will. That's the ultimate reason why government exists in the first place. If the true purpose of government were to increase human flourishing, then it would require almost perfect information of resources and preferences. If it possessed that ability, the services it would provide would be so good, that it wouldn't need to use force to fund its operations.
reply
Come on, I agree with you: examples of which civilization adopted such a practice. This is placing an unshakable belief in human beings. I've heard some libertarians on YouTube who openly defend the monarchy, that liberals are left-wing and defend theocracy. Utopian like communism within the capitalist world we live in today. Tell me which private sector company doesn't have strong state power behind it.
reply
I will answer by a question: how do you think that a monopolistic entity can solve any of the problems you mentioned or think about, better than a free market ?
Libertarianism is just about letting people chose who they want to associate with. Libertarians even welcome communists (which is absolutely not the case the other way around, which say a lot about the morality of each system) as long as they to their shit together. This is the beauty of an anarcap world, you can opt-in and out at will as long as you respect contracts you've willingly signed.
What is very annoying with people disagreeing with libertarian views is their habits of cherry picking problems and yelling "see you can't imagine a way to solve this" while it's precisely because no central authority can find the solution that we have to let the market doing it. On the other hand they of course have a solution for every problem you bring "just let the State solve it" as if THE STATE was not a bunch of dudes just cut off from market signals, with a monopoly on violence (what could go wrong...)
To conclude, libertarianism is just by far the best system we can imagine, or the least bad if you prefer. It's not the panacea, it does not solve everything, it's just the only reasonable way...
reply
I don't know if a monopolistic entity can. I think for most things it can't. However, even with very small probability that the market cannot adequately solve the most pressing issues, my expected value is better with a minimal government.
reply
You should know though, by reasoning and/or looking at history.
Their is no such a thing that can be solved better by a forced monopolistic entity than by a free market. Their is no good reason to prevent competition in any field unless you fear not offering a good enough product/service. Or it's a personal/subjective issue that you want to solve by violence, but it's obviously immoral.
Again in a free world, nothing would stop you and your fellow socialists to gather and associate in order to create your own mini state. The only question is: why on earth would you want to force people into your association ? In other words to go one step further in the story, why communists always end building walls to prevent people from leaving their nightmare of a society ?
Cant' you agree to disagree, do your things, and let people chose what they want ?
reply
How can libertarians articulate that the benefit of eliminating all government is worth the risk?
How can political ideology do this? This is a loaded question that assumes utilitarian morality is what moral framework followed. IMO utilitarian morality is immoral. With utilitarian morality whomever has the bigger gun is the one who gets to call the shots.
Can a proper constitution that is carried out dutifully by a central government increase human flourishing?
This all depends on what your definitions are. e.g. In the US "conservatives" pound their chest about freedom, yet will gleefully vote on laws that put people in jail who smoke plants. If you asked a "conservative" this they would say that throwing said people in jail is "human flourishing".
Is libertarianism - or maybe the non-aggression principle - a legitimate movement/principle if libertarians cannot agree on whether throwing a baby into the ocean ought to be a crime?
What the hell are you talking about? The legitimacy of principles does not change based on a certain group of people agreeing on something or not. Throwing a baby into the ocean is against the NAP, only fools argue that is not true.
How can libertarians change the image that is conjured in people's mind when they hear the word libertarian?
Live their lives, stack sats, be a good person. Actions speak louder than words, stop arguing with others about why "libertarian-ism" works and show it.
reply
This is a loaded question that assumes utilitarian morality is what moral framework followed.
I don't know if I agree with this, but you might be right. I was thinking more around pragmatism. If I am an average guy who is happy with my life, why should I risk "letting the market solve national defense?" At best, I pay less in taxes. At worst, my country gets invaded by China.
This all depends on what your definitions are.
Fair. Under your definitions, can you imagine a scenario in which this is the case? If not, why not?
What the hell are you talking about?
This was listed in the post I linked as one of the hard questions libertarians need to answer.
Please note - the questions I posed are what I think libertarians need to answer if they ever want to have a legitimate voice in the direction of their country (at least from my perspective in the US). I am already opposed to most regulations. I also think there are some that probably do more good than harm, but those are very limited and I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
reply
I was thinking more around pragmatism.
Pragmatism isn't a moral framework. You can argue if killing someone is pragmatic, but most won't care about that, they care if it's moral.
If I am an average guy who is happy with my life, why should I risk "letting the market solve national defense?" At best, I pay less in taxes. At worst, my country gets invaded by China.
Because what you are supporting is immoral.
Fair. Under your definitions, can you imagine a scenario in which this is the case? If not, why not?
Sure, under almost any metric humans have flourished in the last few hundred years. Now did they flourish as a direct result of a constitution? I don't see the connection between a constitution and human flourishing.
This was listed in the post I linked as one of the hard questions libertarians need to answer.
I understand that, what I don't understand is where the baby in the ocean thing came from. Who ever said throwing a baby in the ocean isn't immoral?
Please note - the questions I posed are what I think libertarians need to answer if they ever want to have a legitimate voice in the direction of their country (at least from my perspective in the US). I am already opposed to most regulations. I also think there are some that probably do more good than harm, but those are very limited and I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
Sure, but that's all just your opinion, man. My opinion is that a Libertarian (big L) isn't going to be able to do anything to get a legitimate voice. Look at what happened to Ron Paul when he ran. You can also look at what happened to Bernie Sanders. In the USA if you don't run as a D or a R you are not going to make it anywhere, it's been proven for years.
reply
I don't have time to fire off my answers to these right now, but I especially like 5c. I think the answer is "yes".
reply
I look forward to hearing them. I plan to comment on your post as well (was doing so when I thought of these).
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.