Discuss libertarianism for the Nth time

[Doktor Howl]

Why do you think that total freedom would be a positive thing?

At what point did I say that?  What I said was that anarchic systems instantly devolve into feudalism, because that's how humans are wired.

[Elder Iptuous]

There has never been a free market, Iptuous.  It's a fantasy, like communism.

So is world peace.  should we not aim for it though?

For which?  Communism?

exactly.

Also, i would like to disagree with Rat that having extortion being controlled by the govt. is an oppression on the free market.  extortion, and fraud and shit is criminal, and the govt. should crack down on that.  that doesn't make the market less free...

Yep.  You can't have freedom without laws, and laws mean regulation.

i agree.
no wait.
i don't agree.
i would stop at, 'You can't have freedom.'

[Doktor Howl]

There has never been a free market, Iptuous.  It's a fantasy, like communism.

So is world peace.  should we not aim for it though?

For which?  Communism?

exactly.

Go for it.  However, primates being what they are, you might want to bring an extra lance for those windmills.

Also, i would like to disagree with Rat that having extortion being controlled by the govt. is an oppression on the free market.  extortion, and fraud and shit is criminal, and the govt. should crack down on that.  that doesn't make the market less free...

Yep.  You can't have freedom without laws, and laws mean regulation.

i agree.
no wait.
i don't agree.
i would stop at, 'You can't have freedom.'

Only if you have a "perfect" freedom in mind.  The fact that we can have this conversation argues that we're free, at least to some extent.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Why do you think that total freedom would be a positive thing?

At what point did I say that?  What I said was that anarchic systems instantly devolve into feudalism, because that's how humans are wired.

I'm not sure how that disagrees with anything I've said. "Total Freedom" means that the strong will rule. It's neither fair to everyone or advantageous to everyone... it is, however, free of government control.

How does such a feudal system work?

Guido and his boys have the most guns and the strongest arm, so they start riding roughshot over the other 10 companies that are in our 'free market' story. They are acting freely AND the 10 companies FREELY chose to play in the market with no protection. everyone has made their choice and gets to live with the consequences. Now, Company #4 happens to come up with a great plan and takes Guido and his top 10 enforcers out in a Valentines Day style massacre. Guido and company freely involved themselves in the unregulated market, Company #4 also freely chose to be in the unregulated market and life goes on.

So now Company #4 decides to play Kingmaker.... and they rule the roost until Company #9 pulls off a beautiful Con and wipes out all their holdings. Company #4 no longer has any funds to pay their thugs and they lose power.

All of that is "Free" of government involvement, which is the only kind of "Free" involved in the libertarian concept of "Free Markets".



As for having "Freedom", its entirely possible. It simply requires CHOICE.

If we had the CHOICE to work in the regulated social system OR to exist in a "free" unregulated system... then we would have Freedom EVEN if we accepted the regulated system, because we did so by CHOICE. Being able to voluntarily associate with the social system is the key to freedom.

[Doktor Howl]

If we had the CHOICE to work in the regulated social system OR to exist in a "free" unregulated system... then we would have Freedom EVEN if we accepted the regulated system, because we did so by CHOICE. Being able to voluntarily associate with the social system is the key to freedom.

So what happens when the bullets flying from your unregulated market kill people in my regulated market.

And you already have that choice.  There are dozens of countries with systems just like you describe...and we all have the freedom to move to one of them if we choose.  And your bullets won't hit my customers.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If we had the CHOICE to work in the regulated social system OR to exist in a "free" unregulated system... then we would have Freedom EVEN if we accepted the regulated system, because we did so by CHOICE. Being able to voluntarily associate with the social system is the key to freedom.

So what happens when the bullets flying from your unregulated market kill people in my regulated market.

Then that's a criminal act and the government would have to react to protect their citizens by killing them back. Again, I'm not making any comments about how a Free Market would be better for us, or how it would mean less death or less pain and suffering for people... only that it would be Free.

And you already have that choice.  There are dozens of countries with systems just like you describe...and we all have the freedom to move to one of them if we choose.  And your bullets won't hit my customers.

Err... I think you're still missing the point. For the citizens of a government to be FREE they must be able to choose to associate with the system. That other governments (or lack thereof) exist doesn't change the Freeness (or lack thereof) of the government in question.

[Doktor Howl]

Then that's a criminal act and the government would have to react to protect their citizens by killing them back.

So, basically, we all get sucked into the minarchist system.

Err... I think you're still missing the point. For the citizens of a government to be FREE they must be able to choose to associate with the system. That other governments (or lack thereof) exist doesn't change the Freeness (or lack thereof) of the government in question.

That would be the case if the government in question prevented you from leaving.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Then that's a criminal act and the government would have to react to protect their citizens by killing them back.

So, basically, we all get sucked into the minarchist system.

We would all have to deal with the fact that dangers exist. Most of us would rely on the government to provide security etc so that Guido and friends wouldn't find it advantageous to go shooting randomly through the streets. People get shot today because of gang violence, drug deals gone wrong and other aspects of the black/free market... its no different.

Err... I think you're still missing the point. For the citizens of a government to be FREE they must be able to choose to associate with the system. That other governments (or lack thereof) exist doesn't change the Freeness (or lack thereof) of the government in question.

That would be the case if the government in question prevented you from leaving.

Which is exactly the argument Lysander Spooner made in "No Treason" as the government prevented several States from leaving through the use of deadly force... putting to bed the long held view (since the inception of the Republic) that this was a government that rested on consent and voluntary association. As he also points out in his essay "Constitutional Law, Relative to Credit, Currency and Banking" the laws in place in the US on things like private banking, private currency etc are also restrictions of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms since  article 1, Section 10 declares that "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

[Doktor Howl]

We would all have to deal with the fact that dangers exist. Most of us would rely on the government to provide security etc so that Guido and friends wouldn't find it advantageous to go shooting randomly through the streets. People get shot today because of gang violence, drug deals gone wrong and other aspects of the black/free market... its no different.

Only if there's no difference between "bad" and "worse".

Which is exactly the argument Lysander Spooner made in "No Treason" as the government prevented several States from leaving through the use of deadly force...

And he was right (That was a brilliant essay, btw, and I foist it off on "reformers" every chance I get.)

But that doesn't mean that you, the individual, are not free to choose the political system of your choice and relocate to it.

It's more reasonable than demanding the logistical nightmare of having two different systems in the same society.  Fuck, we can't even arrange charter schools alongside public schools without fucking it up.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

We would all have to deal with the fact that dangers exist. Most of us would rely on the government to provide security etc so that Guido and friends wouldn't find it advantageous to go shooting randomly through the streets. People get shot today because of gang violence, drug deals gone wrong and other aspects of the black/free market... its no different.

Only if there's no difference between "bad" and "worse".

Which is exactly the argument Lysander Spooner made in "No Treason" as the government prevented several States from leaving through the use of deadly force...

And he was right (That was a brilliant essay, btw, and I foist it off on "reformers" every chance I get.)

But that doesn't mean that you, the individual, are not free to choose the political system of your choice and relocate to it.

It's more reasonable than demanding the logistical nightmare of having two different systems in the same society.  Fuck, we can't even arrange charter schools alongside public schools without fucking it up.

Hrmmm, missed theis reply, sorry Dok!


Spooner's argument applies to individual citizens under the US Constitution, this is pretty clear in his 'No Treason' essay (he has a series of them under that label) that focuses on Taxation and Voting:
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

[Kai]

So, recently I just learned about something called Multi-Level Selection Theory (MLS). Essentially, in transmutation by natural selection, selection acts upon many different nested levels, and NOT just the individual. In the past, group level selection has been so villanized that people would have to be appologetic and make it clear they weren't discussing it.

However, with the advent of Sociobiology, this theory of essentially matryoshki dolls has been tested repeatedly in the laboratory and observed in the field. Group level selection often trumps individual level selection when groups are competing against each other.

Now, humans are a social species, composed of "tribes" or "societies" which compete against one another for resources.

Converging lines of evidence suggest that the key difference between human ancestors and other primate species was the suppression of finess differences within groups, concentrating selection at the group level. Hunter gather societies arefiercely egalitarian. Meat is scrupulously shared; aspiring alpha males are put in their place; and self-serving behaviors are censured. Unable to succeed at each othere's expense, members of hunter-gatherer groups succeed primarily by teamwork.

Selection for teamwork probably began very early in human evolution. Human infants spontaneously point things out to others, and not merely to get what they want, which chimpanzees do not do at any age. Symbolic thought, language and the social transmission of information are fundamentally communal activities that rely on trustworthy social partners. Exploitation, cheating, and free riding do exist in human groups, but what is most remarkable is the degree to which they are suppressed. They loom so large in our thoughts partly be cause we are primed to suppress them, like a well adapted immune system.

Teamwork enabled our ancestors to spread throughout Africa and beyond, replacing all other hominid species along the way. While we remained a single biological species, we diversified culturally to occupy hundreds of ecological niches, harvesting of everything from seeds to whales. The invention of agriculture added new layers to the biological hierarchy. We now live in groups of groups of groups.

When we confront the panorama of human genetic and cultural evolution, are we permitted to think about adaptations as being "for the good of the group:? As soon as we employ the Russian-doll logic of MLS theory, the answer becomes unambiguously yes. The idea that within-group selection [ed: selection at the individual level] invariably trumps between group selection is as absurd for ourselves as it is for the eusocial insects.

Emphasis mine.

In other words, this so called libertarian perspective with everyone out for themselves has no support in sociobiology, in fact, it's the opposite. Cooperation is what's allowed humans to survive and flourish, NOT "the strongest individual wins". Egalitarian traits are favored (and they still are in this society, or we wouldn't have any laws against exploitation, cheating or free riding) and the cheaters can only exist at a low level; otherwise, the whole tribe falls to bits. Societies with higher cooperation survive against those that Darwin was forced to refer to as "savages and barbarians", due to his time and place.

There is no support in the evolution of humans for any goodness associated with everyone for themselves "free market economics". Due to the history of humanity, group level selection has lead to egalitarian traits being favored, evolutionary rational for TREATING PEOPLE WITH FUCKING RESPECT.

If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style, I am forced to conclude it would be a socialism with a strict honour code and harsh punishments for "cheaters" of any kind.

[Elder Iptuous]

Kai,
group level selection has been villainized heretofore in biology?  i knew there was controversy, but i didn't know that it was widely dismissed?  what was the reasoning for this dismissal?

also, i would agree with everything you said, however i get the impression that you think everyone that has 'libertarian' views of governance have every man for themselves type views on personal interactions....  This is obviously the case for some, but certainly not for all, and i would argue based on my exposure that it is not the case for the majority by a long shot....
one can still be very generous personally while maintaining that the govt. is not the place for social cohesiveness and cooperation to be enforced.  why can't it simply be embedded in the culture for these traits to be enforced?  and if the culture does not largely embrace those traits, why would governance work in enforcing it?  wouldn't the population simply subvert the spirit of the law and use the good intentions for corrupt purposes?  isn't this, in fact, what we see?  and don't we see people abandoning voluntary cohesiveness and cooperation with the notion that 'its already forced, why should i sacrifice doubly?'

just thinking out loud here...

also, when you say "If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style"  I'm not sure whether you intend to lend any credibility to that notion. (it seems to come across that way....)

[Kai]

Kai,
group level selection has been villainized heretofore in biology?  i knew there was controversy, but i didn't know that it was widely dismissed?  what was the reasoning for this dismissal?

also, i would agree with everything you said, however i get the impression that you think everyone that has 'libertarian' views of governance have every man for themselves type views on personal interactions....  This is obviously the case for some, but certainly not for all, and i would argue based on my exposure that it is not the case for the majority by a long shot....
one can still be very generous personally while maintaining that the govt. is not the place for social cohesiveness and cooperation to be enforced.  why can't it simply be embedded in the culture for these traits to be enforced?  and if the culture does not largely embrace those traits, why would governance work in enforcing it?  wouldn't the population simply subvert the spirit of the law and use the good intentions for corrupt purposes?  isn't this, in fact, what we see?  and don't we see people abandoning voluntary cohesiveness and cooperation with the notion that 'its already forced, why should i sacrifice doubly?'

just thinking out loud here...

also, when you say "If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style"  I'm not sure whether you intend to lend any credibility to that notion. (it seems to come across that way....)

1)In the seventies, you were an outcast if you even mentioned group selection. EO Wilson largely changed that. The reason for the initial dismissal was the naivety of many ideas that were based on "for the good of the group" back then, especially the book Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior by Wynne-Edwards.

2) Then the culture becomes the government. This is known as a self policing society. Unfortunately, we have no unifying honor code in this society, and we are definitely not self policing, so a government is necessary. Contrast that with scientific society, which is largely self policying and doesn't require a particular governing body.

3) As for your last point, this is why the US will fail. And goodly so, because this sort of culture of cheating doesn't work.

4) And to your last statement, I think you're just arguing because you don't want to accept that living in a socialist society (ie an egalitarian one where the members all cooperate) is better than this pile of shit we have right now.


And yes, I think the libertarian view of governance has "every man for themselves" and I have no evidence to expect otherwise, since every libertarian I've ever met has been like that.

Right now I'm getting fucking pissed.

[MMIX]

[snip]

In other words, this so called libertarian perspective with everyone out for themselves has no support in sociobiology, in fact, it's the opposite. Cooperation is what's allowed humans to survive and flourish, NOT "the strongest individual wins". Egalitarian traits are favored (and they still are in this society, or we wouldn't have any laws against exploitation, cheating or free riding) and the cheaters can only exist at a low level; otherwise, the whole tribe falls to bits. Societies with higher cooperation survive against those that Darwin was forced to refer to as "savages and barbarians", due to his time and place.

There is no support in the evolution of humans for any goodness associated with everyone for themselves "free market economics". Due to the history of humanity, group level selection has lead to egalitarian traits being favored, evolutionary rational for TREATING PEOPLE WITH FUCKING RESPECT.

If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style, I am forced to conclude it would be a socialism with a strict honour code and harsh punishments for "cheaters" of any kind.

Human nature  . . . not nature red in tooth and claw, but treating people with fucking respect


Thanks for pointing this out Kai,


and Iptous did I hear that right . . .  are you really saying "why can't we just all be nice to one another" ?

[Elder Iptuous]

...snip...
Right now I'm getting fucking pissed.

Then i'll bow out... 

and Iptous did I hear that right . . .  are you really saying "why can't we just all be nice to one another" ?

no.  i don't entertain any notions that people will 'just all be nice to one another'.... ever.  some will be nice to some, and some will be dicks to some. and that's the way it is.
i also don't entertain the notion that governance, which boils down to violence, will be able to force that, either.
i believe that if it is attempted to be enforced (which i consider to be poor behavior in itself), it will only lead to subversion of the system, resentment, and corruption.