Libertarianism in practice

[mickthinks]

Tell me how Liberty is supposed to work: paint me a picture of a working Libertarian community, society, nation if the citizens, workers, etc. got it right.

I don't wanna read theory, no: I wanna read your vision of application.

Over to you, henry.

[henry quirk]

What would a natural rights libertarian minarchy look like?

In no particular order...

Folks would be more self-responsible (cuz other than private charities, there'd be no social safety net).

More folks would self-employ (cuz there'd be no regs hobblin' self-employment, and who wants to work for somebody else when you can work for yourself?).

Gun ownership would be encouraged (cuz self-reliant men and women aren't inclined to trust others as the only safeguard against violation).

The population would be smaller than it would be in a similar community today (without a social security net, with only private charities, folks would be a mite more diligent in makin' babies only when they want, and can afford, 'em).

Justice would be swift (there's only 3 laws and a handful of associated applications).

There'd be no law makers (folks would negotiate and finagle with one another in civil disputes with the court of last resort as the final, not first, solution).

Contracts would be simple (again, there's only 3 laws and a handful of practical applications).

Money would actually be money (what the market values).


There, a start...have at it: ask questions, level criticisms, make me think and write more.

[FlashDangerpants]

These 3 laws are rather open to interpretation though. So what role does judicial precedent play in all this? If one ad-hoc court of last resort has decided that some instance of relieving somebody of property met that court's agreed on the day standard of "justified" then does another ad-hoc court of last resort have to abide by the same standards or do they get to make everything up as they go?

If you don't have a method for maintaining that continuity, then how can contracts become simpler? You would be introducing an incentive to go the opposite way because if the legal system has no gurantee of consistent outcomes and interpretations, then the lawyers have to anticipate every possible outcome and every possible interpretation in advance..

[henry quirk]

These 3 laws are rather open to interpretation though.

Only the third contains ambiguity (cuz it encompasses so much); the first two are stark.


So what role does judicial precedent play in all this?

The only precedent that matters is those three lines (the first two specifically).


If one ad-hoc court of last resort has decided that some instance of relieving somebody of property met that court's agreed on the day standard of "justified" then does another ad-hoc court of last resort have to abide by the same standards or do they get to make everything up as they go?

The standard is set by the 3 lines: what differs are the players and the circumstances. And there's always appeals.


how can contracts become simpler?

Contracts are bound by the 3 lines, and nuthin' else.


You would be introducing an incentive to go the opposite way because if the legal system has no gurantee of consistent outcomes and interpretations, then the lawyers have to anticipate every possible outcome and every possible interpretation in advance.

Shysters? Who needs shysters? Advocates mebbe, for the timid, but shysters? They were hung along with the finer clay on the first Liberation Day.

The law, in a natural rights minarchy, is not what we labor under now.

[FlashDangerpants]

It seems you aren't really envisaging any very complicated enterprises in your economy.

I can't imagine anybody would domicile within your borders to carry out a multibillion dollar R&D programme when it seems unlikely that the contracts to supply funding couldn't be written. But if they could then disputes are to be resolved with referrence to a one sentence law that only says not to deprive another of property without good reason. And at the end of it all, as intellectual property theft doesn't deprive anyone of a property, it's probably not even illegal unless some bunch of randoms decide it is for today, after which, "appeals" according to some process, although why there would even be an appeals process if those three lines are still the whole of the law I can't imagine. How is one court supposed to be higher than another?

Your imaginary country would be at the mercy of neighbours with modern economies, but it's hard to see what your exports would be other than perhaps agricultural ones.

[mickthinks]

What would a natural rights libertarian minarchy look like?

In no particular order...

Folks would be more self-responsible (cuz other than private charities, there'd be no social safety net).

More folks would self-employ (cuz there'd be no regs hobblin' self-employment, and who wants to work for somebody else when you can work for yourself?).

Gun ownership would be encouraged (cuz self-reliant men and women aren't inclined to trust others as the only safeguard against violation).

The population would be smaller than it would be in a similar community today (without a social security net, with only private charities, folks would be a mite more diligent in makin' babies only when they want, and can afford, 'em).

Justice would be swift (there's only 3 laws and a handful of associated applications).

There'd be no law makers (folks would negotiate and finagle with one another in civil disputes with the court of last resort as the final, not first, solution).

Contracts would be simple (again, there's only 3 laws and a handful of practical applications).

Money would actually be money (what the market values).


There, a start...have at it: ask questions, level criticisms, make me think and write more.

What kinda drugs or bionic brain implants or genegineering would these marvelous libertarians use to create these glorious neo-humans? (cuz they don't exist right now).

[promethean75]

Like myself, a stirnerite anarchist who would consider the 'union of egosists' to be the ideal society, Henry's minarchism also holds rather unrealistic expectations in today's world. Both would require a considerable and sizeable depopulation of the erf in order to work, and would break down almost immediately if either systems came to some momentary fruition.

This is why in political/economic matters concerning seven billion people who claim they desire a genuine democracy, I naturally turn to Marxism. It is, quite literally, a no-brainer.

[promethean75]

... and I don't even do any of this for myself, as I am, and will remain, a mad maxian until my def.

I do it for the peoples and the chilrens. No siriusly, when I look at the world, I don't see a real world. I see a long running south park episode.

[henry quirk]

It seems you aren't really envisaging any very complicated enterprises in your economy.

why? what makes various enterprises complicated?

I can't imagine anybody would domicile within your borders to carry out a multibillion dollar R&D programme when it seems unlikely that the contracts to supply funding couldn't be written.

those fancy-schmancy contracts wouldn't get written why? what multi-billion dollar R&D? why multi-billion dollar R&D?

But if they could then disputes are to be resolved with referrence to a one sentence law that only says not to deprive another of property without good reason.

is that what it sez? can you post the the three lines for me, flash?

And at the end of it all, as intellectual property theft doesn't deprive anyone of a property,

oh my...how did you arrive at that?

why there would even be an appeals process if those three lines are still the whole of the law I can't imagine.

mebbe cuz appeals is sumthin' outside of court?

How is one court supposed to be higher than another?

none would be

Your imaginary country would be at the mercy of neighbours with modern economies,

why? and why does my minarchy lack a modern economy (and what is a modern economy? why is it preferable?)

but it's hard to see what your exports would be other than perhaps agricultural ones.

why?

[henry quirk]

you just gonna parrot me, mick?

[henry quirk]

Both would require a considerable and sizeable depopulation of the erf in order to work, and would break down almost immediately if either systems came to some momentary fruition.

why?

[mickthinks]

Like I said, we can all play your game, henry. I am interested to see how you play it when you are playing against yourself.

What kinda drugs or bionic brain implants or genegineering would these marvelous libertarians use to create these glorious neo-humans you've described?

It seems (at least on the face of it) such a reasonable challenge. Do you have an answer or are you going to duck it?

[henry quirk]

Do you have an answer or are you going to duck it?

I'll answer your mimicry after you answer my original

[mickthinks]

I'm not sure your original is worthy of an answer. I wonder if there is some way you can persuade me that it might be?

What kinda drugs or bionic brain implants or genegineering would these marvelous libertarians use to create these glorious neo-humans you've described?

[henry quirk]

I wonder if there is some way you can persuade me that it might be?

why would I want to?