Interview with a Vamp-uh, Libertarian

[Cain]

This is actually quite disturbing

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-–the-vision.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-ii-–-the-strategy.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-iii-%e2%80%93-regulation.html

Choice quotes:

ANDREW: So who will protect property owners?

CNC: Insurance companies in a competitive marketplace.

ANDREW: So in your society, insurance companies will be sort of like governments. Can we call them security GLOs (Government-Like Organizations)?

CNC: Sure, as long as we stress that the insurance companies, as security GLOs, will be very different from the statist, coercive governments we have today.

ANDREW: Will security GLOs be different from governments because they will be small family firms?

CNC: No. One reason that insurance companies will be well-suited for the role of security GLOs is that they are "big" and in command of the resources... necessary to accomplish the task of dealing with the dangers... of the real world. Indeed, insurers operate on a national or even international scale, and they own substantial property holdings dispersed over wide territories... [281]

ANDREW: Will security GLOs be different from governments because they don't use physical force against criminals?

CNC: You gotta be kidding, right? ... in cooperation with one another, insurers [will] want to expel known criminals not just from their immediate neighborhoods, but from civilization altogether, into the wilderness or open frontier of the Amazon jungle, the Sahara, or the polar regions. [262]

ANDREW: So the security GLOs will be allowed to kill people, if they are known criminals?

CNC: The security GLOs will not kill people, they will just expel them to the Sahara or polar regions. What happens then is up to the criminals.

ANDREW: Can we say that the security GLOs will effectively kill them?

CNC: I really don't like that choice of wording. You make it sound like the security GLOs will be committing aggression against the criminals. That's backwards – the criminal commits aggression, and security GLOs will just defend people. They won't violate anyone's rights.

CNC: Well, certain government-induced distortions would be eliminated. Government taxes more in low crime and high property value areas than in high crime and low property value areas.  Security GLOs would do the exact opposite.

ANDREW: So in rough neighborhoods, most people might not be able to afford security insurance.

CNC: Possibly.

ANDREW: Suppose there are people who aren't covered by any security GLO – would it effectively be legal to kill them?

CNC: They would definitely be rendered economically isolated, weak, and vulnerable outcast

CNC: Look, it's not about putting people in prisons. It's about people getting what they deserve. And in the libertarian society of the future, people will get what they deserve. Security GLOs can be counted upon to apprehend the offender, and bring him to justice, because in so doing the insurer can reduce his costs and force the criminal... to pay for the damages and cost of indemnification. [282]

ANDREW: So they'll have to do forced labor for the security GLO?

CNC: How can you possibly think this could be worse than our current system? Where instead of compensating the victims of crimes it did not prevent, the government forces victims to pay again as taxpayers for the cost of the apprehension, imprisonment, rehabilitation and/or entertainment of their aggressors [259]?

ANDREW: Still, as a libertarian, aren't you against coercion?

CNC: Coercion? Obviously you don't understand what you're talking about. Coercion is only when someone interferes with rights someone else actually holds. Criminals can forfeit their rights through their own choices. When that happens, requiring them to make restitution for their actions doesn't violate their rights.

ANDREW: So you can count on at least some support from other libertarians. But in order to make your revolution happen, you will have to convince other people as well. Are you going to try to get a majority of U.S. voters to support the future libertarian society?

CNC: It won't work – persuade a majority of the public to vote for the abolition of democracy and an end to all taxes and legislation? [...] is this not sheer fantasy, given that the masses are always dull and indolent, and even more so given that democracy... promotes moral and intellectual degeneration? How in the world can anyone expect that a majority of an increasingly degenerate people accustomed to the "right" to vote should ever voluntarily renounce [it]? [288].

ANDREW: If it's not a good idea to try to persuade a majority of Americans to surrender the right to vote, what is the right approach?

CNC: It has to start with a small elite. As Étienne La Boétie said, these are "the men who, possessed of clear minds and farsighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them...." These people will start to secede from the United States.

CNC: With the secession strategy, you don't need a majority. That's good, because [t]he mass of people ... always and everywhere consists of "brutes," "dullards," and "fools," easily deluded and sunk into habitual submission [92]. Still, there can be no revolution without some form of mass participation. ... the elite cannot reach its own goal of restoring private property rights and law and order unless it succeeds in communicating its ideas to the public, openly if possible and secretly if necessary... [93].

ANDREW: Even if you do it secretly, convincing the masses that they are inferior sounds tricky.

CNC: That's true, but you don't have to convince Joe the Plumber that he is a brute. You can convince him instead that he is a hardworking, productive individual, and that other people are brutes who are making it so Joe has no control over his life.

ANDREW: I see.

CNC: Still, you're right. Convincing the masses of the superiority of the natural elite is not the most important part of our communications strategy. The central task of those wanting to turn the tide... is the "delegitimation" of the idea of democracy... [103] It is not enough to focus on specific policies or personalities... Every critic and criticism deserving of support must proceed to explain each and every particular government failing as an underlying flaw in the very idea of government itself (and of democratic government in particular). [94]

ANDREW: Now that I think of it, I have heard people saying things like that.

CNC: There is still a long way to go. There remain far too many people who make unnecessary compromises with the idea of democracy. In fact, there must never be even the slightest wavering in one's commitment to uncompromising ideological radicalism... Not only would anything less be counterproductive, but more importantly, only radical – indeed, radically simple – ideas can possibly stir the emotions of the dull and indolent masses. And nothing is more effective in persuading the masses to cease cooperating with government than the constant and relentless exposure, desanctification, and ridicule of government and its representatives [94].

CNC: There is nothing that would stop the GLOs from cooperating in order to establish stability. Already today, all insurance companies are connected through a network of contractual agreements... as well as a system of... reinsurance agencies, representing a combined economic power which dwarfs that of most existing governments. [248] Under pressure to settle questions about intergroup conflict, competition would promote the development and refinement of a body of law that incorporated the widest... consensus and agreement... [250-251]

ANDREW: So the insurance companies, taken together, will constitute a sort of global, non-coercive, non-government GLO, established in a consensual and rights-protecting manner.

CNC: Exactly.

CNC: Each territory GLO will have entrance requirements (for example, no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus) and those who [do] not meet those entrance requirements [will] be kicked out as trespassers. [211]

ANDREW: If you're only allowed to live in certain areas depending on your race, behavior, and religion, that might sound to some people like a less free society.

CNC: Those people are clearly uncomfortable with free individuals making decisions that they think are mutually beneficial. Maybe they would prefer living in the United States of today, where [d]iscrimination is outlawed... [t]eachers cannot get rid of lousy or ill-behaved students, employers are stuck with poor or destructive employees... banks and insurance companies are not allowed to avoid bad risks... and private clubs and covenants are compelled to accept members... in violation of their very own rules and restrictions. [210]

CNC: Every territory GLO is free to develop its own culture, but only subject to the constraints of inexorable economic laws. First of all, the proprietor and largest investors in the territory GLO would, in order to protect and possibly enhance the value of their property and investments, [216] be very careful about whom to welcome to their territory, and these leaders would set clear standards on what kind of behavior is acceptable for local residents.

Second, the security GLOs would also have a say on who immigrates into the territory GLOs, and even more than any one of their clients, insurers would be interested in... excluding those whose presence leads to a higher risk and lower property values. That is, rather than eliminating discrimination, insurers would rationalize and perfect its practice. [262]

ANDREW: I know that you think this is very unlikely, but suppose people living in the free society of the future decide that they don't like it very much, and would like to go back to living in a democracy. Could they do it?

CNC: That will not be possible.

ANDREW: You mean, you are sure that no one will want to go back to democracy?

CNC: No, I mean they won't be allowed to discuss that possibility. In a covenant... among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society. [218]

Where there are citations, it is because CNC is quoting Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

[Cramulus]

That's a very interesting read.

I'm reminded of how people think that PETA is a great organization ... until they discover that the end-point of PETA's goals includes some pretty batshit things.

"Enough with the vague ideals -- what would a fully libertarian society actually look like?" -- that's the question I'm going to start asking libertarians now.

[Cain]

I will say, in full fairness, the interviewed guy does describe himself as a radical, even by Libertarian standards.  But he explains how that lets the "radicals" police the more moderate "Cato institute" style libertarians.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe could be more accurately be described as an anarcho-capitalist, but he is growing in popularity in certain libertarian circles in the USA...which is rather dismaying, given the "calibre" of his thinking seems to be that "monarchy is preferable to democracy", "free societies dont have any voting" and "no Communists or democrats allowed".

[Scribbly]

I love the idea that shoving people into the sahara isn't strictly killing them, and what happens after that is 'up to them'.

By love I mean, that entire thing is horrifying and I am astounded that they got anyone to sit down and say this kind of thing. Let alone someone who is apparently a spokesperson.

[Elder Iptuous]

interesting read so far, but i'm struck with how scripted the interview seems.

[Cain]

I first came across Hoppe here, which is what initially caught my interest.

It is possible the interview is scripted, Iptuous.  I wondered about that myself.  If so though, it is still a viable medium for the discussion of Hoppe's ideas, which is why I decided it was worth posting, regardless of its veracity.

[Faust]

So we have segregation of minorities and some of the other worst parts of fascism but without the efficiency or national pride. You have the all pervasive and controlling aspects of communism (down to not being allowed to discuss democracy), but none of proper control structure on industry. You have the opening for gross exploitation by industry of pure capitalism, but no opportunity of free trade or movement between corporations.

Frankly this sounds like all of the CONS of every political structure of the last 200 years with none of the PROS.

[Elder Iptuous]

Cain:  certainly worth discussion, and thanks for the link! 

Faust: you are simply on the wrong leg of the wealth distribution L to appreciate the beauty of it!

[Cramulus]

Some media I'd like to see at this point: a nostalgic glorification of the foundation of labor unions, worker's rights, etc. People need to be reminded corporations would love to employ your children, make you work 80 hour weeks in unsafe conditions, and treat you like a slave. There was a time when you needed to use a precious sick day in order to take Christmas off. Corporations haven't gotten nicer since then, they've gotten more regulated.

That's the best counterargument to radical libertarianism IMO: pointing out the ways that the state is protecting us from ourselves -- and that's a protection we need.

[Cramulus]

I wish there was a political position that advocated "weak government AND weak corporations". I don't even know what that would look like, honestly. I'm just sick of the existing ideologies which make us choose between getting screwed by Big Brother or Big Pharma. Can't we have neither? Ah, what an impossible dream.

[Faust]

"weak government AND weak corporations".

Sounds like you just volunteered for the sahara

[Jenne]

@ Faust.

This guy's a religious nutball.  Pure and simple.  And you know what happens when they distribute that KoolAid to their followers.

[Elder Iptuous]

poe's law?

this interview seems to go out of its way to paint a dystopian future where the advocate proudly holds up the worst aspects.
i call shenanigans on that.

the prospect of things actually trending that way?
hm...
if states continue to hollow out there could be aspects of this vision that come to pass, no?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow. That was... amazing.

[Cain]

Ippy, I see what you're saying...but Hoppe, for example, does quite proudly hold up those things as a vision of the future.

If you read the URL version of the interviews, anything you see in red is a direct quote from him.  I somehow doubt all of that nasty shit is followed with "...and this is why we cannot let it happen".