Question for the Libertarians

[kerry]

As I was reading a libertarian today, the thought crossed my mind, why do Libertarians believe in government at all? If the individual is the ultimate political atom and private property the right of the individual, what necessity is there for government at all? I know libertarians defend government as a mechanism for the defense of the individual and his or her property, but I can't figure out why this is necessary. Why isn't the individual responsible for their own defense? Why can't the rich capitalist rent his or her own mercenary army to protect his or her property? Why does a government have to do it?
In other words, what logical reason is there for a libertarian not to be a total right wing private property anarchist?

Originally posted by kerry edwards
Why can't the rich capitalist rent his or her own mercenary army to protect his or her property? Why does a government have to do it?
In other words, what logical reason is there for a libertarian not to be a total right wing private property anarchist?

I'm going on a limb here I haven’t been a libertarian for some time now, the only tax under a libertarian system is paid by a corporation which is basically a war fund, to protect corporate assets, and personal property is sort of protected as a trickle down type theory.

Libertarians also protect contracts between individuals in a anarchist system there is no central governing figure to protect, property or contracts.

Originally posted by PaulC
Who will pave our streets? Few Libertarians own steamrollers.

Private companies would own and maintain the streets you would pay a usage fee.

We had a little experiment like that here and I must say it's the best piece of highway around.

[kerry]

Why can't libertarians enforce their own contracts with their private armies? On the other hand, I suppose on that model, the government is a kind of private army organized by property owners to protect their interests.

I'm under the impression Libertarians would like to privatize the ownership of roads and all publically owned properties and have the owners charge for their use.

[Botnst]

Originally posted by kerry edwards
As I was reading a libertarian today, the thought crossed my mind, why do Libertarians believe in government at all? ...

The ideal world would be in the final phrase in Jefferson's, "That government which govern's least governs best and the best governs not at all."

But people don't live ideally. We often behave badly. There is where we need gov.

The first Dubyah wasn't a great writer in the sense of a gripping novel. But his mind and heart sings to us down through the centuries with a deeply considered opinion on party politics. The writing style is pretentious to our eyes. But if you take the time to understand this man you'll know why he has been revered for generations.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.

One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.

Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.

This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume

[kerry]

I can see some of Dubyah's points, but they seem inconsistent with pure Libertarianism. They assume there is some reality to mutual interests and group effort that transcend the ultimate value of the individual. In other words, government is the expression of the group and the group has some legitimate authority over and above the individual. But as soon as this point is granted; that there are group interests and collective goods that can only be achieved by the cooperation of many, a person is well on the road to socialism.

[Botnst]

Originally posted by kerry edwards
I can see some of Dubyah's points, but they seem inconsistent with pure Libertarianism. They assume there is some reality to mutual interests and group effort that transcend the ultimate value of the individual. In other words, government is the expression of the group and the group has some legitimate authority over and above the individual. But as soon as this point is granted; that there are group interests and collective goods that can only be achieved by the cooperation of many, a person is well on the road to socialism.

Yes, you're right about it not being pure libertarianism. The real Dubyah and his boys were pragmatic. Dubyah addresses the need for gov earlier in his piece, while I am fixated on the evils of party politics.

I guess there are people who are pure libertarians, I call them, "Ted Kacinsky anarchists". I think pure libertarianism is as abhorrent as pure communism.

Instead, I like a blance between the individual and society. Society needs order and discipline. Individuals crave exitement and dance with chaos. That tension require something to moderate the relationship. That something, is government.

I have no interest in defending "L"ibertarianism. It always seemed kinda granola-flakey to me.

So, mark me down as a liberty-loving American. The libertarian pigeon-hole is to-to big for me and the conservative pigeon hole is too restrictive. If the Democrats and Limbaugh hadn't stolen and abused the name beyond recognition, I'd be a "liberal." Thanks to those Demo Big Gov oafs and Rush's blanket condemnation of "liberals" I can no longer use that term without picturing Dukakis looking like Alfred E Neuman poking his grinning-doofus head out of a turret. The Horror!

Botnst

[djugurba]

lib govt: keeps you from infringing on my liberties.
c'est tout.

you have an army? no worries. you decide your army is going to venture into the neighbors yard? lib. govt. stomps you.

you want to get together with a group of friends and surrender all possessions and live the John Lennon 'Imagine' dream? no problem, go to it. You want to make me participate? get a Lib Govt. boot in the a$$.

of course, today, people have come to feel entitled to everything, so might choose to define liberties as unlimited health care, a new hummer H2, and free college education. How can I pursue happiness without a new Hummer H2?

I think lib goverment can simply yield social programs and other things to private enterprise. The US public lands used for grazing that cost mucho dinero to maintain is a good example. will a farmer treat his own land or public land with more respect? But, we've all seen the brownfields produced by bad industry. Love canal anyone?

Should we have universal health care? maybe- but should it be run by the government? libs will say absolutely not.

Libertarianism is not the denial of the effectiveness or need for any programs, but rather the desire that if one wishes to not pay for it, they are permitted to do so.

I'd like a line-item veto on my taxes. Do I want $4 of my taxes to go to cause X?... No.... ok, deduct $4 from taxes. Do not expect benefits from cause X foundation in the future. Be warned, we warned you.
Do I want the military to protect me and my house from terror? No. Deduct $999 from taxes. A list with my name has been sent to the middle east. discout ammo available at www.formersovietammodump.com. happy hunting.
total tax bill? $0 Thank you for choosing to live in the united states. Please dispose of your own sewage in an environmentally friendly manner. Use taxes are payable to the owners of every other property adjacent to yours.

I think there are too many of us to achieve a libertarian ideal. more people = more people unwilling/unable to support themselves. pure libs and repos will say screw 'em, let 'em work for a living or rot. I can't buy that answer. self reliance contains in it behaving in your own best interest. Taking care of those around you certainly fits that bill. See appendix A: class revolutions past and present.

[Zeitgeist]

...for some time, I've been mulling over a gedanken experiment in which you take a group of diehard libertarians and a group of commie pinko-types, and set each onto identical islands to populate in their own utopian fashion. I hypothesize that when you returned in 50 years, if they hadn't self-destructed, they'd more than likely look quite similar. Humans always seem to be battling the twin evils of extreme liberty and security, not matter which ideology holds sway at the moment.

[Botnst]

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
...for some time, I've been mulling over a gedanken experiment in which you take a group of diehard libertarians and a group of commie pinko-types, and set each onto identical islands to populate in their own utopian fashion. I hypothesize that when you returned in 50 years, if they hadn't self-destructed, they'd more than likely look quite similar. Humans always seem to be battling the twin evils of extreme liberty and security, not matter which ideology holds sway at the moment.

In a small group setting like that it would be foolish not to set-up pure communism. As factionalism develops then pure communism fails. I think Marvin Harris' sequence from there foreward is reasonable.

In pure trading or pure hunter-gatherer cultures power dissipates more quickly than in mixed agrarian cultures. When the society becomes agrarian people get tied to the land. Somebody has to organize labor and distribute produce equitably. Wheras in hunter-gatherer, the hunting units can get no larger than the carrying capacity of the prey and forage items. Once the local resources are depleted its time to move on. Bands stay small, no hereditary centralized authority but a headman or woman position may be created as needed. But everybody knows everybody and kinship bonds facilitate sharing limited resources.

In pure trading cultures folks are on the move and live in small bands but reurn to large settlements for spouses and renewal of kinship ties and so forth. But again, the population is transient and thus can't support a nobility class. Perhaps this is true-blue libertarianism.

I can't figure-out when or how a perfect libertarian society would naturally arise without commerce being the source of all life-sustaining items. Absent extraordinary geographical circumstances, I don't think pure libertarian society would persist. It would be over-run in pretty short order by monarchical, expansionist societies.

You and Kerry have intrigued me with this. I guess I'll go take another look at "Manifesto". Its been over 30 years.

B

[jjl]

Forgive me for stating what may be the bleedin obvious, but the challenge is to create a system that penalises defectors, in the prisonor's dilemma sense. Virtually all of our social evolutionary development occurred in small groups, where extended-family kin selection and even some limited group selection could operate - anti-social behaviour could be selected against. Things are different now. We are not psychologically competent in the modern world, for want of a better phrase.

I see right-wing libertarianism as the product of alienation from too many negative interactions with too many people who have no interest in the welfare of others. Left-wing, anarchic libertariansism, on the other hand, seems to draw strength from a negative view of the state, and is more positively disposed towards others.

Is this about right?

[Botnst]

Chickens raised in broiler houses containing 20k birds that begin their lives in the house and about a month and a half later are butchered. They spend that entire lifetime trying to establish a pecking order and never succeed. Imagine how neurotic they must be,

Sounds familiar.

B

[The Warden]

Originally posted by jjl
I see right-wing libertarianism as the product of alienation from too many negative interactions with too many people who have no interest in the welfare of others. Left-wing, anarchic libertariansism, on the other hand, seems to draw strength from a negative view of the state, and is more positively disposed towards others.

Is this about right?

Sounds about right to me.

So, then, what is communism the product of?

[Botnst]

Originally posted by The Warden
Sounds about right to me.

So, then, what is communism the product of?

It can only survive in a trusting, close relationship. Therefore, I think small kinship groups are necessarily communist while larger groups can never be purely communist.

As groups get larger, competing interests become increasingly important. Heck, its even important among squabbling children. But small groups tend to develop unit cohesion, that magic property scientifically pursued by military trainers everywhere and for ll time. Military units are not divided into decreasing sizes just for fun, psychologists from pre-history yo the present day know that a unit of more than a hundred men begins to lose bonding and intimacy.

The romans had centuries (led by a centurian) and nowadays we have a platoon. So I'll bet that Z's initial somewhat arbitrary number of 50 is probably about right to upper range for a huntr-gatherer clan to be cohesive and effective. That's too small to maintain genetic viability so several times a year clans must meet to allow courtships.

Where my primitive society's analogy with military breaks down completely is here: the military must be hierarchical or it will never successfully complete ny mission, even self-defense. Whereas, our family/clan group wouldn't need a rigid hierarchy. It would have eladership dependent upon the goals of the clan. Making pots? Head potter takes over. Childbirth, midwife takes over. Etc. This is more purely "from each according to his abilities" than any modern society could possibly achieve.



Bot

[kerry]

The Mondragon cooperatives starting experiencing lack of cohesion once they grew beyond a certain size. They then limited the size of their co-ops. I think the limit is around 500. Z may be able to confirm this.

I grew up on a communist college campus where everyone from the president to the janitor was paid the same.