Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Conservatism, Libertarianism and Other Distinctions
I recently got back from attending the 10th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. It’s a libertarian organization of the anarcho-capitalist variety, started by Hans Hermann Hoppe (anonymous recently reviewed one of Hoppe’s books). I found the visit rejuvenating: rarely do I spend four or five days in the company of so many libertarians.
Even on Ricochet, there seems to be a constant conflict between conservative and libertarian ideology. What most people — including many of my fellow Ricochetti — would find most surprising about the conference is how conservative these anarcho-capitalists are. I present to you a speech from last year’s meeting by Dr. Gerard Casey, a Catholic, conservative anarchist, and a lovely and brilliant man. To me, it encapsulates why so many anarchists exist in the libertarian movement, and why they aspire to the same morals as most conservatives.
Published in Culture, Religion & Philosophy
I think the most common way around this is to advocate for institutions that are essentially government. Like private police force and private law. The big difference is in the method of selection – i.e. purchasing these services instead of elections.
But, as per AP’s point in #60, what is to stop my company from warring with another.
Someone has to be the final arbiter, or it becomes “Man with the most guns”
I think that there is a very valid fear that anarcho-capitalism will descend into type of mafia war state, but that’s all it is a fear. A lot of the complaints in this thread are the result of a lack of imagination and out of the box thinking and would be tempered by a thorough reading of Rothbard
I am by no means an anarcho-capitalist and I share Tom’s annoyance that many anarcho-capitalists are of the “Anarchy or nothing” bent. I am equally annoyed by the “show me where in history this has been tried” school of thought. Capitalism, Democracy, and Republican Government were all new ideas at one point – I am glad we didn’t listen to the “when has this ever worked in history” worry worts then. That said anarcho-capitalism is not as easily dismissed as some here claim.
You do realize that that final arbiter is already “man with the most guns” we just happen to call it “Government”.
Agreed. Even if there was no election at all. From the first moment that the BSD of the band of hunter gatherers laid down and enforced the law or first time that a group voted on how it would proceed and made compliance/cooperation mandatory for remaining in the group, government was born. We’ve improved on it greatly since then, but it’s a fundamental building block of society.
This sounds to me like a lot of psuedo government meddling in our lives.
Government in the USA is not just “the man with the most Guns”. That is a dictator. We do not live in a dictatorship.
As far as demanding proof, well, you are the one calling for a radical change, so you have to give me the evidence.
Does it not bother you that many of these arguments sound much like “But real communism has not been tried yet”?
Finally, you cannot just dismiss the expectation that anarchy turns into despotism as a “fear”. That is how it has always happened. You might as well say the expectation that if I leave $1000 in $100 sitting on a park bench that someone will take it as just a fear.
As I reread it, it relies heavily on the idea that people will keep acting in there own economic self-interest. i.e. it is too expensive to be bad.
It also sounds like I can buy victory by buying the laws the way I want. Does that sound like Liberty?
It’s interesting to me that libertarian dreams sound a lot like pre-snake Eden or perhaps the millennium–the lion and lamb lie down together. If only humans would awake to their true consciousness and interests, we’d get this right. I think the reality would be something like Hunger Games.
Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding about libertarianism.
Yep.
Though to be fair, this is the anarchy crowd. I do not expect to see Frank Soto jump in here to support absence of government (in part because he and I had this exact argument with a young anarchist at the last Atlanta Meet up).
Your actually talking about transforming the system of governance for 320 million people with the answer read these books and you will see why this is great. I don’t see very many people reading the books, so this never happens.
The Magna Carta showed that a document could limit a government so the idea of a Constitution to limit the government was easy to understand. Greece had a democracy so citizens voting on government was easy to understand. The government was founded on a written document that was agreed upon and amended. All this provided the foundation for our form of government.
In contrast you offer lets get rid of it all, or most of it, and see what happens. I think skepticism is a very nice response to this.
I think this scenario has already been tried in the form of feudalism. And they weren’t immune from using their power to their own advantage and it did lead to perpetual conflict and war between competing “companies”.
We are talking about the anarchist strain here, as outlined in the thread and videos, not all of libertarian thought.
Unless what you mean is that we don’t understand the anarchy crowd, and then I disagree. Of course I do. They think people can self-govern and live in peace. I maintain there are enough people unwilling to live and let live that it cannot be done.
History is on my side.
Everyone demonstrates a lack of understanding about libertarianism and what it is trying to accomplish, as this thread amply shows.
BTW–I believe that libertarians lead conservative personal lives in general and agree with me on most values. What’s interesting about every explanation of it I’ve ever heard of the theory is that it starts out sounding kind of reasonable and simple, but boy, is the devil ever in the details!
Edit–I like what Bryan says too–that we do understand the simple idea, but my point in the paragraph above is that the simple idea doesn’t bear out when human nature is considered. It simply doesn’t comport with human reality.
It’s more likely to lead to Liberty than people voting. How much actual hard earned money are people going to be willing to waste in order to get the laws that oppress others? On the other hand, we see how easy it is for low information voters to vote for lots of laws that oppress others.
So, you aren’t guaranteed liberty because a suitable number of people could buy the laws they want, but we already have people buying the laws they want in the current system. It would almost certainly be more expensive in a free market instead of having only a few people you need to buy off who make the laws.
Better to stick with the devil you know, huh?
Oh yes.
Classic Fiscal Conservatism really is Fiscal Libertarianism. Johan Goldberg and Mark Steyn have made this point on numerous occasions. Heck I heard my dad making this point when I teenager even before I know who those two men where. Anyone who actually understood and knew about the policy details of different camps would come to this collusion. It is the fact people are not very informed that you get the appearance that there are major differences.
It is Foreign Policy were there is the greatest divide. To the point that I think your typical libertarian is dangerously crazy.
.
Except that State isn’t some wholly separate entity from the governed in our system. The state is us and we are the state. And it’s not just laws which serve to limit the powers the state is allowed to exercise. It’s natural checks and balances including the ultimate check of armed resistance.
I think the friction goes deeper, though. This is more fundamentally about a disagreement over the legitimacy of majority and how to balance that with the inherent dignity of the individual, and about the nature of society/civilization/community.
Very different on social issues as well.
The goal of anarcho-capitalism is not to burn down the state tomorrow. It’s a stable entity and America’s is one of the best ones ever in history. All we want for people to start realize is,
“You know, it’s true that most of the things that government does is inherently immoral and largely unnecessary. If there was a way to have at least as stable a society that didn’t rely on government, it would probably be preferable.”
Then, over time, it may be possible for enough people to realize they don’t really need government for most things and can handle day to day life without it.
If people reduced how much they cared about government and the people in the government realized people didn’t care much about them anymore, they might decide to just go home because it’s not worth it without the recognition.
Nothing is stopping them. In the “purchased” systems I’ve seen discussed I believe that there are fewer levers, checks, and balances available to the typical powerless person than there are in our current system.
Where do I sign to opt out?
Can I stop our interventions in Syria and Iraq? How many abortions can you refuse to pay for?
http://ricochet.com/archives/what-is-consent/
So are the criticisms of Utopia in its various forms – just fears and lack of imagination and the fact that people haven’t evolved to that point yet.
As Bryan said, it’s more than just fear in this case. History shows time and again how easy it is and how common it is for strong men to impose their rule and to hold onto that power tightly even unto oblivion.
Here’s my response from that post you linked:
We aren’t hatched in the wilderness, all alone and without context. We are born into pre-existing social arrangements, every single time, whether those are the arrangements of your parents setting the rules or the arrangements of the broader community setting the rules or both. That’s the human condition without fail. No one asks our permission to do such a thing, but it happens anyway. If we’re lucky enough (and we in the US are lucky enough) we’re born with good options available.
As with religion, your parents/guardians do make some decisions on your behalf when it comes to consenting to a political system. Eventually you become free to choose for yourself, but it doesn’t follow that your decision should supersede the pre-existing arrangement.
What are your options? You can vote according to your interests. You can persuade other voters to do the same. You can leave any time you want. You can take your chances with ignoring/disregarding the law. You can mount armed resistance any time you want.
You cannot expect, though, that your way or no way is a realistic way of governing ourselves. Self government does not mean government my way all the time.
Yeah it seems that a group of people or business with enough money and guns could buy and enforce any law they wish there is nothing in this system to prevent this.
Did you watch the part of the video where the speaker says that libertarianism is not a complete philosophy of life? That it is a starting point. This is a drum that has been beaten by all of Ricochet libertarians for years now and yet it someone still has not been acknowledged.
This is gross exaggeration (in our system); we are not surrendering obedience in every aspect of our lives for fear of force. By any historical benchmark we are exceedingly free. Yes, even with Obamacare and a progressive tax system and a general disdain for subsidiarity and federalism. Even with laws that support abortions and curtail some gun ownership/use.
So, according to that school of thought, slavery, empires and king ships are OK so long as you are born into it?
In my world view, humans always strive to better themselves. My focus is freedom.