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:
QuoteANDREW: 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.
QuoteCNC: 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
QuoteCNC: 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.
QuoteANDREW: 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.
QuoteCNC: 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].
QuoteCNC: 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.
QuoteCNC: 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]
QuoteCNC: 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]
QuoteANDREW: 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.
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.
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".
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.
interesting read so far, but i'm struck with how scripted the interview seems.
I first came across Hoppe here (http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/04/the-sick-mind-of-hans-hermann-hoppe.html), 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2011, 02:49:21 PM
"weak government AND weak corporations".
Sounds like you just volunteered for the sahara
:lulz: @ Faust.
This guy's a religious nutball. Pure and simple. And you know what happens when they distribute that KoolAid to their followers.
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?
Wow. That was... amazing.
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".
Wow. That was very interesting, very disturbing and horrible.
Quotethe superiority of the natural elite
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
Combine with the "no melting pot" cultural and racial separation, this sounds exactly like one rather intellectual racist Italian dude that hung around at a satellite board of ~Seekers, except with a strange capitalist/libertarian bend (which I'm not sure if that dude shared because it didn't really come up back then).
About the scriptedness, it does have a definite "Socratic dialogue" style to it.
Cain, i read the links, and will read the next three installments if i can remember.
it's interesting to think about.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2011, 02:46:26 PM
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.
The state fought the labor unions every step of the way.
Mind you libertarians tend to be fanatically opposed to labor unions as well, but pointing out what labor unions have done for us is not exactly an arguement in favor of statism.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2011, 02:49:21 PM
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.
watered down Anarchism. That would be...Libertarian Socialism.
Quote from: Faust on December 01, 2011, 02:41:36 PM
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.
I second that. But I say they go make an island in the Pacific Ocean and try it. :lulz:
This just sounds like feudalism with computers.
Quote from: Emo Howard on December 02, 2011, 10:07:24 AM
This just sounds like feudalism with computers.
This. I kept getting struck by how oligarchic it sounded.
ETA: And just flat out cruel.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 01:48:56 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 01, 2011, 02:41:36 PM
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.
I second that. But I say they go make an island in the Pacific Ocean and try it. :lulz:
I thought they did have an island already?
*goes to Google*
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html
It has been tried several times, always with predictable yet hilarious results. I know there's thread about it around here somewhere that lists several of them.
ETA: Here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=29963.120) and here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25247.0).
That was fucking amazing. :lulz:
There's no coercion, but you aren't allowed to talk about any other system. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
That was fucking amazing. :lulz:
There's no coercion, but you aren't allowed to talk about any other system. :lulz:
I was face-palming so hard by that point.
Quote from: Telarus on December 02, 2011, 06:24:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
That was fucking amazing. :lulz:
There's no coercion, but you aren't allowed to talk about any other system. :lulz:
I was face-palming so hard by that point.
Can someone show me a difference between this and Stalinism? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2011, 06:27:16 PM
Quote from: Telarus on December 02, 2011, 06:24:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
That was fucking amazing. :lulz:
There's no coercion, but you aren't allowed to talk about any other system. :lulz:
I was face-palming so hard by that point.
Can someone show me a difference between this and Stalinism? :lulz:
Stalinism is a lot more consistent and would run into far fewer problems over time.
I for one, look forward to roughing it out in the Saharan prison colony.
Hey glittersnatch- i think that this means that we end up controlling the oil supply :evil:
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 02, 2011, 09:55:00 PM
Hey glittersnatch- i think that this means that we end up controlling the oil supply :evil:
:lulz:
This is my favorite bit.
QuoteCNC: Murray Rothbard likes to call them "modal-libertarians" (MLs). As Rothbard says, "the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him," who only hates government because it is something else to disrespect. MLs think that profanity, drug use... homosexuality... pedophilia... or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality... are perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles [206]. What these countercultural libertarians fail to realize... is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic rise in social "discrimination" and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the... life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. [208]
Left-libertarians and multi- or countercultural lifestyle experimentalists, even if they were not engaged in any crime, would once again have to pay a price for their behavior. If they continued with their behavior or lifestyle [in public], they would be barred from civilized society and live physically separate from it, in ghettos or on the fringes of society, and many positions or professions would be unattainable to them. [212]
:argh!: God damn gays being allowed to hold well paying jobs!
Im starting to think that libertarianism is even less feasible than communism.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 02, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Im starting to think that libertarianism is even less feasible than communism.
... and is as reasonable as Nazism.
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 03, 2011, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 02, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Im starting to think that libertarianism is even less feasible than communism.
... and is as less reasonable as than Nazism.
Fixed, maybe?
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 03, 2011, 04:01:35 AM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on December 03, 2011, 03:52:39 AM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 03, 2011, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 02, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Im starting to think that libertarianism is even less feasible than communism.
... and is as less reasonable as than Nazism.
Fixed, maybe?
That seems about right.
You know, Heil Koch and all that, may as well get it out in the open. This is how this shit happens. It's not like Socialist was placed after National by accident. Nope. Now we'll have a American Worker's National Libertarian Party. And above the gates it will say "Free Market Makes Free."
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 03, 2011, 04:01:35 AM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on December 03, 2011, 03:52:39 AM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 03, 2011, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 02, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Im starting to think that libertarianism is even less feasible than communism.
... and is as less reasonable as than Nazism.
Fixed, maybe?
That seems about right.
I was trying not to overstate it.
QuoteThere can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order.
Ever notice how many Libertarians don't seem to be even vaguely familiar with what the word "libertarian" means?
Maybe we can figure out some way to harness their massive irony deposits for electricity. I mean, as far as I can tell it's a virtually limitless resource.
Quote from: CorbeauEtRenard on December 04, 2011, 01:15:37 AM
QuoteThere can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order.
Ever notice how many Libertarians don't seem to be even vaguely familiar with what the word "libertarian" means?
Maybe we can figure out some way to harness their massive irony deposits for electricity. I mean, as far as I can tell it's a virtually limitless resource.
:lulz:
in the past, irony deposits have been harvested for ore. which can be turned into magnets and used to generate electricity.
The rest of the series has been published, and the writer has put up a thoughtful afterword here http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-response-to-reader-comments.html
QuoteThe word libertarian originally meant anarchist, or libertarian socialist, in the sense of someone who is wary of authority in general, whether coming from the state or from property rights arrangements. However, libertarian as used today more typically refers to right-libertarians like Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard. For a more complete discussion of the different uses of the word libertarian, Karl Widerquist has written a nice essay on the subject.
Widerquist points out that it "is perhaps poetically appropriate that property rights advocates have appropriated a term that was already being used by people who subscribe to the idea that property is theft, and that these property rights [advocates] now accuse anarchists of trying to steal [the term] from them."
Fairly or not, most people today think of right-libertarians when they hear the word libertarian, and so I will from now on use libertarian to mean right-libertarian. I have personally known many libertarians, and one is a good friend of mine. I became particularly interested in libertarianism when I started to realize how powerful such ideas have become in America today. One major political party is strongly influenced by think tanks like AEI and the Cato Institute, in which libertarian ideas are extremely prominent. Although members of the Tea Party do not fit a single stereotype, they do have a strong penchant for libertarian rhetoric.
Barack Obama frequently expresses his support for the "free market" and talks about the "burden" of taxes; Republican candidates feel no corresponding obligation to express verbally their support for "democracy," or for the existence of some taxation. If candidates of both parties now talk in ways that are conditioned by libertarian preferences, it is clear that libertarianism has made great strides.
During the series, one reader made a comment about the outlandishness of libertarian thought, to which reader Foppe appropriately replied, "That doesn't matter – the question is whether they influence policy."
What is Libertarianism?
The critics of libertarianism often describe it as a theory that privileges liberty, or freedom, over other values like equality, or social justice, or tradition. They often respond by agreeing that liberty is important, but that it is important to balance liberty with other essential commitments.
However, after reading a number of libertarian authors, such as Hayek, Friedman, and Nozick, it started to seem to me that libertarianism is not a theory of freedom at all. Reader Marat cited an example by libertarian Walter Block, in which a person is hanging for dear life to a flagpole protruding from the 15th floor of a high-rise. Block says that if the apartment owner demands that the person let go, and the flagpole hanger attempts instead to climb down into the balcony, then if "the occupant shoots him for trespassing... the answer is clear. The owner... is in the right, and the trespasser is in the wrong."
In my experience, libertarians often enjoy citing examples like this, in which the freedom of the flagpole hanger to survive is trumped by the right of the owner to maintain sovereignty over her apartment. Is is possible that libertarianism is a theory of sovereignty, and not a theory of freedom?
Libertarian Sovereignty
If libertarianism is a theory of sovereignty, it is natural to wonder whether libertarian sovereignty can be just as tyrannical as the kind of governments that libertarians dislike. If libertarianism defends the rights of corporations to govern themselves as they see fit, will some people end up signing contracts that effectively make them quasi-slaves? Many libertarians specify that no one will be allowed to sign a contract to make themselves a slave. However, what if people sign contracts that effectively make them into slaves without doing so explicitly? Then they could be slaves in a rights-respecting manner – would that be okay? If not, what is the alternative? Should the government be allowed to police every possible contractual arrangement and annul the ones that it thinks could lead to effective slavery?
John Holbo of the blog Crooked Timber made an argument along these lines, arguing that a certain form of libertarianism can become something close to feudalism.
On the other hand, Widerquist has written an interesting article (A Dilemma for Libertarianism) taking this observation in a slightly different direction. He points out that the same arguments that libertarians use to defend the sanctity of property rights can be used just as easily to defend the rights of governments to tax individuals and to regulate businesses – or the rights of a hereditary, unconstitutional monarch.
At this point it becomes to seem like libertarian ideas of sovereignty can justify many different possible societies. Some of these societies would not be considered very free by normal definitions of the word.
Reader Susan the other initially wondered if the series would help us understand how to balance freedom and equality. She later decided that in Code Name Cain's ideal world
QuoteThere is no freedom and there is no equality? Hoppe-Libertarianism is so over the top it wipes dilemma off the plate. No worries at all about how to balance everyone's freedom with everyone's equality because emotional democracy is out of the question. CNC takes the instinct for freedom and crushes it forthwith. I was expected him to crush equality first.
More at the link.
The writer also admits in this afterword that CNC was in fact an invention of his, but one developed sincerely in attempting to grapple with the libertarianism of Hans-Herman Hoppe:
QuoteHans-Hermann Hoppe is quite real. While one reader identified Code Name Cain as John Denson (adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute), it is my opinion that he is the fruit of my imagination. However, CNC was not intended to be satire in the normal sense of the word. Reader Chad, who has some familiarity with Hoppe's work, declared that even 'if this is an apocryphal interview, it's not satirical hyperbole.' StPaulite added, "the direct quotes in red are without fail more batshit than the rest of the text."
In fact, I found Hans-Hermann Hoppe's ideas fascinating, but it would have been quite difficult to construct a dialogue entirely from snippets of his book. Even if I had done that, there would still have been a risk of misrepresenting his thought. Code Name Cain was created so that I could try to fill in missing or uncertain details of a Hoppe-like philosophy in the most logical manner I could think of, without attributing these additions to Hoppe himself. Some fine points that a couple readers thought I personally invented were actually adapted (rather faithfully) from Hoppe's book: in particular, the graphs in part VI showing time-preference curves for different types of individuals (compare p. 8 of Hoppe's book).
In defense of readers that thought CNC was simply a satire, reader RanDomino cites Poe's law: "[...] it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism."
So, he came to the same conclusion that we did, that feudalism seems to be a distinct possibility of a society built on libertarianism.
That was a really interesting take, I'm glad there are credible people out there writing about this.
Quote from: Areola Shinerbock on December 03, 2011, 04:04:21 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 03, 2011, 04:01:35 AM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on December 03, 2011, 03:52:39 AM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 03, 2011, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 02, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Im starting to think that libertarianism is even less feasible than communism.
... and is as less reasonable as than Nazism.
Fixed, maybe?
That seems about right.
You know, Heil Koch and all that, may as well get it out in the open. This is how this shit happens. It's not like Socialist was placed after National by accident. Nope. Now we'll have a American Worker's National Libertarian Party. And above the gates it will say "Free Market Makes Free."
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-YakADiZ_ZbA/TwJVVKjrE7I/AAAAAAAAAVs/WcxO_OobqDM/s980/freier%252520markt%252520macht%252520frei%2525202.jpg)
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on January 02, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
So, he came to the same conclusion that we did, that feudalism seems to be a distinct possibility of a society built on libertarianism.
Widerquist's essay concerning that (link at the original article) is well worth reading.
If you take the right-libertarian position that past injustices do not matter, since they happened such a long time ago that they can never be properly redressed, then work from the position of a land-owning gentry having seized that land a couple of hundred years ago through right of conquest, then they can extract rent from their subjects with absolutely no problem, and violating that "contract" would be initiating aggression and violating the rights of the landowner.
In societies like Saudi Arabia, a country owned by a family (literally) or certain South East Asian monarchies, or perhaps even our very own modern societies (where the anarcho-mutualist Kevin Carson has suggested that the aristocracy were in essence the first venture capitalists, using illegally seized land from generations past to make themselves wealthy and invest in the industrial revolution, banking operations and so on), this obviously has the flaw of reifying certain existing economic arrangements which were highly inequal from the outset. I don't know how Hoppe's GLO's would handle it, but for the minarchist side of the debate, it would allow the government to intervene under the clause of protecting contracts and property rights.
I believe only Nozick has really dealt with anything like this situation in any sort of depth from the American right-libertarian tradition (based on what I can remember from philosophy classes long ago). There is a lot more on the left and mutualist side about that sort of thing, as you would expect.
Found these guys through one of the comments: (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2002/03/immigration_and_libertarians.html)
Quote
The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
I
like these guys, they have critical minds.
QuoteAs far as I am concerned Hans-Hermann and Ilana are free to feel distaste at the idea of the close proximity of alien cultures, races and lifestyles (clearly the case for Hoppe) but for them to then deduce that their sentiments are in fact what would be the 'natural' sentiments of the majority if it were not for state enforced integration is not really born out by the evidence.
People are perfectly fine with cultures in proximity once they are well established. No one these days would think twice about a russian moving to new york.