“AnCap Has Never Been Tried!” and Other Myths

 

One of the great myths I hear from people who believe in a utopia is that things like Communist, Socialist, and, yes, Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap) societies “Have never been tried”. This is, of course, nonsense. The USSR, China, Venezuela, Romania, Cambodia, and countless other nations give lie to the idea that a Communist Socialist society has not been tried. Dr. Jordan Peterson says it well here:

I really like his point, that this is an arrogant position: If I were in charge, I am so good and so competent I could usher in the utopia. I apply it to anyone making any utopian claims.

That brings us to the anarcho-capitalists, and the claim that their version of utopia has never been tried, either. This is also nonsense. We have seen, time and again in history, that when there is no state, there is not anarchy for long.

“Anarchy is the least stable of social structures. It falls apart at a touch.” — Larry Niven

What made me think about all this is this article today, on the death of an AnCap promoter: John Galton Wanted Libertarian Paradise in ‘Anarchapulco.’ He Got Bullets Instead

Galton and Forester were anarcho-capitalists who slipped U.S. drug charges worth 25 years in prison, they said in a YouTube video that night. They’d hopped the border and resettled in what Galton called one of the world’s “pockets of freedom,” a community billed as a libertarian paradise.

Almost two years later, Galton was murdered.

Last week, gunmen burst into the couple’s mountaintop home, killing Galton on the spot, and seriously wounding one of the couple’s friends. (Forester survived, badly shaken.) The killers are presumed to be a drug cartel; Mexican authorities say Galton grew marijuana at the home

Wow. In the absence of a strong government, a gang burst into his home and killed him.

Galton was part of a small community of fellow anarcho-capitalists formed by Jeff Berwick, who promised a drug-friendly haven and hosts the annual “Anarchapulco” festival. Berwick says Galton and Forester should’ve known what they were getting into.

“They started up a competing conference to Anarchapulco, called Anarchaforko and John continued to be involved in one way or another with the production or sale of plants,” Berwick told The Daily Beast in an email. “Unfortunately, that is the one thing that is very dangerous to do in Mexico as the drug cartels will attack anyone they see as competition and that appears to have happened to John.”

So, even in the AnCap utopia, you cannot grow weed in your own home and you cannot sell it because some other group, one with more guns, will come kill you. And there is no government to even punish them for it. I guess this really does mean might makes right in the AnCap world.

This whole story demonstrates, once again, that any real moves towards a libertarian AnCap utopia will always collapse into what I call “Warlordism”: He who has the biggest guns, wins.

Anarcho-capitalists who complained of robberies or street corner assaults faced ridicule, Mike claimed.

“Because this is a very ideological group, everything Jeff says is dogma,” he said. “If you said anything contra to the dogma, you’d be ostracized and in some cases doxxed. I know people who moved there and got robbed… However, when they publicly state this, the whole community turns against them and treats them as some kind of informant or spy.”

Heh. Cultish following of a leader. Not like communism or socialism at all, right? I love the way it closes:

“Anarchists understand that the government’s prohibition of plants and substances cause these problems and if anything it just makes events like Anarchapulco even more important in order to change the world and get rid of the violence and chaos caused by government,” Berwick said.

Blaming the government for everything is just like the socialists blaming racism for every ill under the sun. With no government, do we really think organized crime gangs would stop doing what they are doing? The price would drop? Somehow, I think the would just go into “legit” business, and their anti-competition behavior would go right on. No government to stop them. Heck, the one in Mexico right now is so weak it cannot.

Utopia is not coming to this world, not for communists, not for socialists, and not for AnCaps. Any attempt to create a utopia will always result in tyranny. Always.

Published in Economics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 167 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The moment you have more than one person, some compromise will have to happen. This gets back to a key difference for me between libertarian and conservative thinking: I am first concerned with my nation being here in the future. Then I am worried about coersion. Both are important, but if we have to force people with the plague into camps to keep the rest of us disease free, so be it. 

    Cops have guns for a very good reason, but it’s still coercion, and most be treated very carefully.

    And please do correct me if I’m wrong, but libertarians have no philosophical need for morality, but without it free men as a whole literally cannot survive.

    • #91
  2. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    AnCap is as much utopia as Democracy is utopia. It’s not anarchy in the sense that there are no rules or there are not any institutions. It requires a highly ordered system and really advanced, agreed upon morality, similarly to how democracy needs people to agree on the outcomes of elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

    Many aspects of AnCap have been tried with fairly long lasting success. It is true that it hasn’t all happened in one place at one time. AnCap doesn’t promise utopia. Nothing can really stop someone who’s really wants to murder you. All it aims to do is minimize the amount that people overstep their rights.

    • #92
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Maybe. But again, it’s easy for intelligent people to ascribe intelligence to other people who actually have little or none. So when those non-intelligent people do damaging things, it’s too easy to assume that they’re intelligent and therefore the damage is done by malice. But it’s not. Stupidity can explain putting a hand on a hot stove, and it can explain confiscatory taxes, Green New Deals, etc.

    My chicken can run around with its head cut off.  Through behavior modification, my dog could train me probably just as well as I could train it.  A person with an IQ of 85 may be marginally employable, but still is smarter than any dog, chimp… or porpoise.  I don’t think intelligence is the differential here.  I think it’s goodwill versus malice.  And less than half of people have an IQ below 100.  And most of the other half (in the bell-curve of life) are not necessarily much smarter.

    And beyond intelligence is a kind of functional wisdom, maybe called “smarts”, caginess or street smarts.  In a congress, or in a society as a whole of, on-balance, average people how smart does Nancy Pelosi have to be to repeatedly get her way?  And even if she has an IQ of 100, smack in the middle, does that mean that she isn’t likely to be malevolent?

    My answer is that, if not, on balance half her principles and ideas should accidentally be good and helpful as not.  If they are mostly bad, oppressive, confiscatory and destructive I can’t assume benevolence, or even incompetence.

    And as an involved voter I have to go with my most internally-consistent explanation for things.

    • #93
  4. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Mike H (View Comment):

    AnCap is as much utopia as Democracy is utopia. It’s not anarchy in the sense that there are no rules or there are not any institutions. It requires a highly ordered system and really advanced, agreed upon morality, similarly to how democracy needs people to agree on the outcomes of elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

    “Democracy may only be a few steps removed from anarchy, but at least it’s not as loud.”

    • #94
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Her pie in the sky version of politics plays well to troll the conservatives and plays well with her base.

    I’m still looking forward to that Green Dream to Hawaii!  It’ll be fun.

    • #95
  6. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    Liberty is the absence of being coerced.

    @jamesgawron: perfect. Thank you.

    But what about when someone turns up their stereo too loud? Or lets their dog run loose? etc, etc.

    @kedavis, Really?  When someone turns up their stereo too loud, I walk over, politely knock on the door, and ask them to turn it down (this is actually a real world thing for me).  I have neighbors (little twenty-somethings, they’re so cute) that will come over in the afternoon to tell me and the lovely and talented Mrs. Mongo that they’re having a party and that we’re invited (totally disingenuous) and that the music might be loud for a while (totes cool).

    Also, another set of neighbors has an adorable brindle-coated pit named Tucker that when they first moved in would let him frolic leash-less.  I had a talk with Tucker’s young lad owner, and we both agreed that he should leash Tucker.  Because people deserve that peace of mind.  Because it prevents any random events putting li’l Tuck in a bad light.  Because it’s good for Tucker.  No issues.  Message sent, message received. 

    I find it so glaringly obvious, when I speak of the lack of coercion, that I’m speaking about the gov jackboot on one’s throat, that I find it hard to fathom a different interpretation of liberty.

    What?  Before you knock on your neighbor’s door to ask to turn down the music you’d call the police?  Before you tell your neighbor to leash his pit you’d call animal control?

     

    • #96
  7. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    Liberty is the absence of being coerced.

    @jamesgawron: perfect. Thank you.

    But what about when someone turns up their stereo too loud? Or lets their dog run loose? etc, etc.

    @kedavis, Really? When someone turns up their stereo too loud, I walk over, politely knock on the door, and ask them to turn it down (this is actually a real world thing for me). I have neighbors (little twenty-somethings, they’re so cute) that will come over in the afternoon to tell me and the lovely and talented Mrs. Mongo that they’re having a party and that we’re invited (totally disingenuous) and that the music might be loud for a while (totes cool).

    Also, another set of neighbors has an adorable brindle-coated pit named Tucker that when they first moved in would let him frolic leash-less. I had a talk with Tucker’s young lad owner, and we both agreed that he should leash Tucker. Because people deserve that peace of mind. Because it prevents any random events putting li’l Tuck in a bad light. Because it’s good for Tucker. No issues. Message sent, message received.

    I find it so glaringly obvious, when I speak of the lack of coercion, that I’m speaking about the gov jackboot on one’s throat, that I find it hard to fathom a different interpretation of liberty.

    What? Before you knock on your neighbor’s door to ask to turn down the music you’d call the police? Before you tell your neighbor to leash his pit you’d call animal control?

    No offense, Boss, but your mileage may vary on this sort of thing.

    “Hey guys, the big, scary, trained killer who lives next door thinks we should turn down our music.  What do you say?”

    • #97
  8. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    No offense, Boss, but your mileage my vary on this sort of thing.

    “Hey guys, the big, scary, trained killer who lives next door thinks we should turn down our music. What do you say?”

    Point.

    Those kids love me, though. Really.

    • #98
  9. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    No offense, Boss, but your mileage my vary on this sort of thing.

    “Hey guys, the big, scary, trained killer who lives next door thinks we should turn down our music. What do you say?”

    Point.

    Those kids love me, though. Really.

    That helps.

    • #99
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    Liberty is the absence of being coerced.

    @jamesgawron: perfect. Thank you.

    But what about when someone turns up their stereo too loud? Or lets their dog run loose? etc, etc.

    @kedavis, Really? When someone turns up their stereo too loud, I walk over, politely knock on the door, and ask them to turn it down (this is actually a real world thing for me). I have neighbors (little twenty-somethings, they’re so cute) that will come over in the afternoon to tell me and the lovely and talented Mrs. Mongo that they’re having a party and that we’re invited (totally disingenuous) and that the music might be loud for a while (totes cool).

    Also, another set of neighbors has an adorable brindle-coated pit named Tucker that when they first moved in would let him frolic leash-less. I had a talk with Tucker’s young lad owner, and we both agreed that he should leash Tucker. Because people deserve that peace of mind. Because it prevents any random events putting li’l Tuck in a bad light. Because it’s good for Tucker. No issues. Message sent, message received.

    I find it so glaringly obvious, when I speak of the lack of coercion, that I’m speaking about the gov jackboot on one’s throat, that I find it hard to fathom a different interpretation of liberty.

    What? Before you knock on your neighbor’s door to ask to turn down the music you’d call the police? Before you tell your neighbor to leash his pit you’d call animal control?

     

    It depends a lot on the quality of the neighbors.  And if they’re new, you don’t really know much about them yet.  My experience with pit bull owners is that every single one of them (except those who are actually training them for dog fights etc) believes theirs is a little darling that would never hurt a fly.  Maybe right up until (true story) one of their adorable pups turns 1 and soon after kills its mother and siblings.  Without ever having been mistreated or anything. 

    So when dealing with often/mostly-irrational people, I prefer it happen under some color of authority that the people involved can’t merely poo-poo and shrug off, or plot some kind of revenge… (because they don’t know who reported them)

    Also, when you’ve got people at a loud party, maybe drunk or stoned or both, it seems to make more of an impression – and prevent “OH YEAH?  WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS!!!” type things – if they’re told to quiet down by someone with a gun on his hip and a radio to call for backup.  Another polite, civil person wouldn’t be – or at least shouldn’t be – offended by that, and it’s quite important when dealing with non-polite, non-civil people that are all too common these days.

    If that’s a problem in some areas, maybe that means their police aren’t very good.

    • #100
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Maybe. But again, it’s easy for intelligent people to ascribe intelligence to other people who actually have little or none. So when those non-intelligent people do damaging things, it’s too easy to assume that they’re intelligent and therefore the damage is done by malice. But it’s not. Stupidity can explain putting a hand on a hot stove, and it can explain confiscatory taxes, Green New Deals, etc.

    My chicken can run around with its head cut off. Through behavior modification, my dog could train me probably just as well as I could train it. A person with an IQ of 85 may be marginally employable, but still is smarter than any dog, chimp… or porpoise. I don’t think intelligence is the differential here. I think it’s goodwill versus malice. And less than half of people have an IQ below 100. And most of the other half (in the bell-curve of life) are not necessarily much smarter.

    And beyond intelligence is a kind of functional wisdom, maybe called “smarts”, caginess or street smarts. In a congress, or in a society as a whole of, on-balance, average people how smart does Nancy Pelosi have to be to repeatedly get her way? And even if she has an IQ of 100, smack in the middle, does that mean that she isn’t likely to be malevolent?

    My answer is that, if not, on balance half her principles and ideas should accidentally be good and helpful as not. If they are mostly bad, oppressive, confiscatory and destructive I can’t assume benevolence, or even incompetence.

    And as an involved voter I have to go with my most internally-consistent explanation for things.

    I did say 100 or less.  And frankly, I figure that an IQ of maybe 110 or so might be needed for someone to have much comprehension of how many things work.  Other than just having been “programmed,” that is, either by parents (good or too-often-bad), or by church (ditto), teachers (ditto), etc.  And as usual, part of the problem is the number of people who THINK they know more than they really do, which again could be from overinflated self-esteem from parents/church/teachers/etc.  In other words, a lot of people know just enough, or are just smart enough, to be dangerous.  Because they can be filled with bad ideas that they aren’t smart enough to realize are bad ideas, and then they go vote.  But, that doesn’t make them malicious.  Malignant, perhaps.  But not malicious.

    Often, the true dunderheads have no inclination to vote, and can’t be bothered even if pressed.  The problem comes more from the in-betweens.

    Even Nancy Pelosi, for example, might be smart enough to win elections (which doesn’t seem terribly difficult given her district), but still dumb enough not to know that what she favors policy-wise are very bad ideas in the real world. So, she would also be just ignorant/malignant, not malicious.  But still dangerous.  The problem comes with how to deal with that danger.

    • #101
  12. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Maybe right up until (true story) one of their adorable pups turns 1 and soon after kills its mother and siblings. Without ever having been mistreated or anything.

    Yeah.  No.  Any dog can go bad.  Any dog can go good.

    Doesn’t change the fact that a citizen should tell his neighbor, “Hey, leash that beast” before calling gov’t authorities.  It’s a courtesy.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    So when dealing with often/mostly-irrational people, I prefer it happen under some color of authority that the people involved can’t merely poo-poo and shrug off, or plot some kind of revenge… (because they don’t know who reported them)

    So…you’re ruling out giving “being neighborly” a chance?  Do you not think that maybe talking to them and asking them to conform to a socially acceptable norm, instead of calling the po-po, might engender some good will?

    Too, if you’re doing it right, if your neighbors should be more afraid of you than the police.  The police’l never get there on time, brother.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Also, when you’ve got people at a loud party, maybe drunk or stoned or both, it seems to make more of an impression – and prevent “OH YEAH? WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS!!!” type things – if they’re told to quiet down by someone with a gun on his hip and a radio to call for backup. Another polite, civil person wouldn’t be – or at least shouldn’t be – offended by that, and it’s quite important when dealing with non-polite, non-civil people that are all too common these days.

    Don’t they deserve the courtesy of a neighborly “hey, please turn it down” before the police are called, though?  And when you did it, you didn’t have a gun on your hip because of why?

    • #102
  13. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Stupidity can explain putting a hand on a hot stove, and it can explain confiscatory taxes, Green New Deals, etc.

    Not the third time.

    • #103
  14. Nanda "Chaps" Panjandrum Member
    Nanda "Chaps" Panjandrum
    @

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Maybe right up until (true story) one of their adorable pups turns 1 and soon after kills its mother and siblings. Without ever having been mistreated or anything.

    Yeah. No. Any dog can go bad. Any dog can go good.

    Doesn’t change the fact that a citizen should tell his neighbor, “Hey, leash that beast” before calling gov’t authorities. It’s a courtesy.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    So when dealing with often/mostly-irrational people, I prefer it happen under some color of authority that the people involved can’t merely poo-poo and shrug off, or plot some kind of revenge… (because they don’t know who reported them)

    So…you’re ruling out giving “being neighborly” a chance? Do you not think that maybe talking to them and asking them to conform to a socially acceptable norm, instead of calling the po-po, might engender some good will?

    Too, if you’re doing it right, if your neighbors should be more afraid of you than the police. The police’l never get there on time, brother.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Also, when you’ve got people at a loud party, maybe drunk or stoned or both, it seems to make more of an impression – and prevent “OH YEAH? WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS!!!” type things – if they’re told to quiet down by someone with a gun on his hip and a radio to call for backup. Another polite, civil person wouldn’t be – or at least shouldn’t be – offended by that, and it’s quite important when dealing with non-polite, non-civil people that are all too common these days.

    Don’t they deserve the courtesy of a neighborly “hey, please turn it down” before the police are called, though? And when you did it, you didn’t have a gun on your hip because of why?

    Agree, Boss, but you and I came up in a culture of “shared norms”, and a time when neighbors sometimes shared party-line phones, borrowed pantry items, etc. Now, it’s “bowling alone by house number and zip code”. And, oh, yeah…We weren’t entirely sold on the idea of outside intervention as a first resort, were we? The times, they are a’changin’…

    Btw, what a perfect lap-dog for you…Such a sweetie! Who’s this member of the clan?

    • #104
  15. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):
    And frankly, I figure that an IQ of maybe 110 or so might be needed for someone to have much comprehension of how many things work.

    So really, you favor an intellectually merit-based government of some sort, whether an oligarchy or experts or whatever.  That is supposed to be what a republic is.  If most people are not smart enough to know the issues, and hold civil servants accountable, then any true democracy (of which the US is not one) will always fail.

    In other words it sounds like you’re saying that a truly representative government of a populace with an IQ of 100 is not possible because the populace is not smart enough to understand the processes of government, and are therefore not smart enough choose representatives fit to serve the needs of the people.

    I tend to think people are smarter than they are given credit for, and greedier.  And I think this is why only a moral people can make a republic work, and even then not forever.

    • #105
  16. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Maybe right up until (true story) one of their adorable pups turns 1 and soon after kills its mother and siblings. Without ever having been mistreated or anything.

    Yeah. No. Any dog can go bad. Any dog can go good.

    Hey, Mongo,

    What’s with the picture of George C. Scott?

    • #106
  17. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Nanda "Chaps" Panjan… (View Comment):
    Btw, what a perfect lap-dog for you…Such a sweetie! Who’s this member of the clan?

    He’s Conrad.  My daughter gives foster care to animals because there’s no “no kill” animal shelters in her zip code.  So she fosters them until they’re either adopted or arrangements can be made to move them to a “no kill” shelter.

    Conrad, though, won her heart and she kept him.  He’s a good wee li’l beastie.

    • #107
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Maybe right up until (true story) one of their adorable pups turns 1 and soon after kills its mother and siblings. Without ever having been mistreated or anything.

     

    Yeah. No. Any dog can go bad. Any dog can go good.

    Doesn’t change the fact that a citizen should tell his neighbor, “Hey, leash that beast” before calling gov’t authorities. It’s a courtesy.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    So when dealing with often/mostly-irrational people, I prefer it happen under some color of authority that the people involved can’t merely poo-poo and shrug off, or plot some kind of revenge… (because they don’t know who reported them)

    So…you’re ruling out giving “being neighborly” a chance? Do you not think that maybe talking to them and asking them to conform to a socially acceptable norm, instead of calling the po-po, might engender some good will?

    Too, if you’re doing it right, if your neighbors should be more afraid of you than the police. The police’l never get there on time, brother.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Also, when you’ve got people at a loud party, maybe drunk or stoned or both, it seems to make more of an impression – and prevent “OH YEAH? WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS!!!” type things – if they’re told to quiet down by someone with a gun on his hip and a radio to call for backup. Another polite, civil person wouldn’t be – or at least shouldn’t be – offended by that, and it’s quite important when dealing with non-polite, non-civil people that are all too common these days.

    Don’t they deserve the courtesy of a neighborly “hey, please turn it down” before the police are called, though? And when you did it, you didn’t have a gun on your hip because of why?

    Last point first:  I’m just one person, with one gun, and no radio for backup.  Also no – or at least much less – fear of retribution from society at large.

    But the first problem is them knowing who I am.  My experience has been that the people causing problems, and even moreso their children, start spreading stories and etc, and even calling the police themselves and claiming that I’m harassing and threatening THEM.

    • #108
  19. Nanda "Chaps" Panjandrum Member
    Nanda "Chaps" Panjandrum
    @

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Nanda "Chaps" Panjan… (View Comment):
    Btw, what a perfect lap-dog for you…Such a sweetie! Who’s this member of the clan?

    He’s Conrad. My daughter gives foster care to animals because there’s no “no kill” animal shelters in her zip code. So she fosters them until they’re either adopted or arrangements can be made to move them to a “no kill” shelter.

    Conrad, though, won her heart and she kept him. He’s a good wee li’l beastie.

    Awww, he’s a real heart-stealer. So glad he’s found a forever family with yunz! A bonny laddie, I’ll bet he has a terrific smile.

    • #109
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    And frankly, I figure that an IQ of maybe 110 or so might be needed for someone to have much comprehension of how many things work.

    So really, you favor an intellectually merit-based government of some sort, whether an oligarchy or experts or whatever. That is supposed to be what a republic is. If most people are not smart enough to know the issues, and hold civil servants accountable, then any true democracy (of which the US is not one) will always fail.

    In other words it sounds like you’re saying that a truly representative government of a populace with an IQ of 100 is not possible because the populace is not smart enough to understand the processes of government, and are therefore not smart enough choose representatives fit to serve the needs of the people.

    I tend to think people are smarter than they are given credit for, and greedier. And I think this is why only a moral people can make a republic work, and even then not forever.

    If you’re dealing with people who aren’t smart enough to figure things out themselves, then it’s likely a question of what they’re taught, by parents, schools, etc.  It’s hard to figure these days, that they’re getting a very good education in many such situations.  They might be taught that gender is more important than anything else, for example, and then sent out to vote accordingly.

    The most important lesson of all, though, might be “if you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk about it.”  With a corollary, “if you don’t understand the issue, don’t vote on it.”  These days, no schools or parents will teach children those concepts.  Every student is above average, etc etc.  And no teacher would ever tell a child they’re ignorant about anything.  They might be fired, or worse.

    • #110
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Just out of curiosity, do you think Pelosi or Schumer understand anything of what you wrote here? Or is it possible they do understand and don’t care one way or the other?

    Flicker,

    I doubt either one ever spent that much time to really understand any philosophic position. Their position centers around maximizing their bottom line. Their bottom line is increasing the size of the federal budget and increasing their ability to control as much of that budget as they can for their own interests. After that, they might think about the interests of the American people and the Human race in general but that gives Chuck & Nancy a headache so they try not to think about it too much.

    I think there are a lot more AOCs in Congress and the Senate than we really know. She’s just made her ignorance and foolishness blatant for all to see. Most of them know to keep quiet. But have a feeling that Capitol Hill has far more complete ignoramuses than we realize.

    I don’t think it’s just Congress or government in a wider sense. To repeat one of my longest-lasting maxims, “Most people have an IQ of 100 or less, by definition.”

    That said, there do seem to be some incentives for non-thinking/non-productive people to end up in government at one level or another.

    This is a great paradigm and it has to be true. Another reason government should be shrunk.

    • #111
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The moment you have more than one person, some compromise will have to happen. This gets back to a key difference for me between libertarian and conservative thinking: I am first concerned with my nation being here in the future. Then I am worried about coersion. Both are important, but if we have to force people with the plague into camps to keep the rest of us disease free, so be it.

    Cops have guns for a very good reason, but it’s still coercion, and most be treated very carefully.

    And please do correct me if I’m wrong, but libertarians have no philosophical need for morality, but without it free men as a whole literally cannot survive.

    The original Constitution was highly libertarian and they flat out said it’s only going to work with a moral god-fearing citizenry. Woodrow Wilson ruined it.

    • #112
  23. Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu Inactive
    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu
    @YehoshuaBenEliyahu

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    The original Constitution was highly libertarian and they flat out said it’s only going to work with a moral god-fearing citizenry

    Libertarians today don’t have much interest in G-d, from what I understand, which helps to explain their blase attitude towards radical Islam.

    • #113
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    The original Constitution was highly libertarian and they flat out said it’s only going to work with a moral god-fearing citizenry

    Libertarians today don’t have much interest in G-d, from what I understand, which helps to explain their blase attitude towards radical Islam.

    I think this topic is quite a bit more complicated than that.

    • #114
  25. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    The original Constitution was highly libertarian and they flat out said it’s only going to work with a moral god-fearing citizenry

    Libertarians today don’t have much interest in G-d, from what I understand, which helps to explain their blase attitude towards radical Islam.

    I think this topic is quite a bit more complicated than that.

    Actually, I think libertarians are the easiest to understand.  You can do anything you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else; and if you do, there may or may not be a civic order to protect the innocent, punish you, and repress similar behavior in others.  No?

    • #115
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Flicker (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    The original Constitution was highly libertarian and they flat out said it’s only going to work with a moral god-fearing citizenry

    Libertarians today don’t have much interest in G-d, from what I understand, which helps to explain their blase attitude towards radical Islam.

    I think this topic is quite a bit more complicated than that.

    Actually, I think libertarians are the easiest to understand. You can do anything you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else; and if you do, there may or may not be a civic order to protect the innocent, punish you, and repress similar behavior in others. No?

    Off the top of my head, two things: when you look at what libertarians or Austrians say actually causes war, I’d say you pretty much need to be somewhat militaristic / interventionist / have international alignments / interests just to survive.  Having said that, I think the State Department and the neocons et. al. are proven screwups.

    The other thing is, I pretty much agree with every single thing Yoram Hazony says.

    • #116
  27. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):
    Before you knock on your neighbor’s door to ask to turn down the music you’d call the police? Before you tell your neighbor to leash his pit you’d call animal control?

    That’s how it goes these days. People don’t want to talk to their neighbors. They’ll call the police for the most ridiculous reasons.

    • #117
  28. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The moment you have more than one person, some compromise will have to happen. This gets back to a key difference for me between libertarian and conservative thinking: I am first concerned with my nation being here in the future. Then I am worried about coersion. Both are important, but if we have to force people with the plague into camps to keep the rest of us disease free, so be it.

    Cops have guns for a very good reason, but it’s still coercion, and most be treated very carefully.

    And please do correct me if I’m wrong, but libertarians have no philosophical need for morality, but without it free men as a whole literally cannot survive.

    The original Constitution was highly libertarian and they flat out said it’s only going to work with a moral god-fearing citizenry. Woodrow Wilson ruined it.

    I don’t think the constitution was ever libertarian. It allowed slavery. Rather I think it was federalist, deferring much to teh states, and teh states were certainly not libertarian. 

    • #118
  29. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    It allowed slavery.

    This wasn’t ideal. It had to be done. 

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    I don’t think the constitution was ever libertarian. It allowed slavery. Rather I think it was federalist, deferring much to teh states, and teh states were certainly not libertarian. 

    If you know more about this than me and these are important distinctions, so be it. All I know is everything has gone down the drain since Wilson. Centralized power sucks. It is dysfunctional and we are living through it.

    Possibly what this discussion is missing are the rights we surrendered to the government as a practical matter. I think except for the slavery and lifetime court appointments, it was ideal. 

    • #119
  30. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Actually, I think libertarians are the easiest to understand. You can do anything you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else; and if you do, there may or may not be a civic order to protect the innocent, punish you, and repress similar behavior in others. No?

    Off the top of my head, two things: when you look at what libertarians or Austrians say actually causes war, I’d say you pretty much need to be somewhat militaristic / interventionist / have international alignments / interests just to survive. Having said that, I think the State Department and the neocons et. al. are proven screwups.

    The other thing is, I pretty much agree with every single thing Yoram Hazony says.

    I’m more interested in what you think.  On-line I’ve asked over and over again what constitutes a basic libertarian DOs and DON’Ts list in a rubber-meets the-road kind of way.  In other words what are libertarians, and how do they expect a libertarian society to function and flourish?  And frankly, among libertarians, I’ve never gotten an answer.  I know this stuff is complex, but what is a libertarian?  Did I sum up the concept well enough? :)

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.