How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[Rudd-O]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

No one is burdened with any obligation to answer your tangential topic change questions, because you have failed / neglected / declined to prove your earlier claims first.

[myrkul]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

No one is burdened with any obligation to answer your tangential topic change questions, because you have failed / neglected / declined to prove your earlier claims first.

Ironically, it's actually a change back towards the original topic, and since it's so rare that such a turn is taken, I decided to honor it. Even though they're far from what I would call "honest questions," given how so many are either contradictory or blatantly biased.

They boil down to just one question, though: "Why isn't AnCapistan here now?" To which the answer is, of course: "For some reason , the plantation owners don't like the idea of the slaves setting up their own farm. And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

[Bitcoin Oz]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

No one is burdened with any obligation to answer your tangential topic change questions, because you have failed / neglected / declined to prove your earlier claims first.

Ironically, it's actually a change back towards the original topic, and since it's so rare that such a turn is taken, I decided to honor it. Even though they're far from what I would call "honest questions," given how so many are either contradictory or blatantly biased.

They boil down to just one question, though: "Why isn't AnCapistan here now?" To which the answer is, of course: "For some reason , the plantation owners don't like the idea of the slaves setting up their own farm. And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

Get hold of some nukes and seize an island.

[TheButterZone]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

No one is burdened with any obligation to answer your tangential topic change questions, because you have failed / neglected / declined to prove your earlier claims first.

Ironically, it's actually a change back towards the original topic, and since it's so rare that such a turn is taken, I decided to honor it. Even though they're far from what I would call "honest questions," given how so many are either contradictory or blatantly biased.

They boil down to just one question, though: "Why isn't AnCapistan here now?" To which the answer is, of course: "For some reason , the plantation owners don't like the idea of the slaves setting up their own farm. And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

Get hold of some nukes and seize an island.

Last Resort, on A*BC

*merican

[myrkul]

"For some reason , the plantation owners don't like the idea of the slaves setting up their own farm. And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

Get hold of some nukes and seize an island.

Maybe you missed this part?

And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

(that includes threatening violence in order to take part of their farm.)

[cunicula]

myrkul, what do you think of indentured servitude? I understand owning a human is not okay, but what about renting one?

For example, here in Singapore we love our imported bonded labor, but sometimes they cause disturbances.

Today, we have some mainland Chinese refusing to drive the bus. They want less crowded dormitories or some such nonsense.

They signed a contract to come here and work. The contract stipulates 1 year imprisonment as a penalty for failing to perform their duties when physically able.

Is a voluntary contract like this legitimate? [e.g. it would be unconstitutional in the US, but it's kosher here, which is the correct view? (according to Natural Law of course)]

[myrkul]

myrkul, what do you think of indentured servitude? I understand owning a human is not okay, but what about renting one?

That's actually one of the criticisms of the contractual society, that it would allow for these sorts of contracts. But it's voluntary, so I don't really have a problem with it. I don't think a lot of people realize that the US was built on indentured servitude. The trip over here was expensive, so many people, to pay for the trip, pledged a few years of their lives once they got here.

[FirstAscent]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

Some of them are contradictory, such as "Why do they never get started? Why do they never last?" indicating that you are asking them from an agitated emotional state, but I will answer anyway.

There have been Libertarian societies. Even anarchic ones. Pennsylvania, for instance, had a period where nobody even tried to be boss. And not surprisingly, it was the most peaceful period of the colonial US. The United States of America were originally set up in a very libertarian framework. Lincoln decided that he didn't like that. (If you go back to the Articles of Confederation, it was even more libertarian, but a monopoly without the power to compel payment is a rather weak monopoly.)

Pieces have been tried, and worked quite well. They failed, of course, because they were only pieces. Medieval Iceland had a private justice system. That failed when it got bought out, because the judges didn't have the competition required to keep them honest. Pennsylvania failed to stay an anarchy because the Quakers were pacifists, and wouldn't fight back.

The complete package has never been tested, primarily, because these flag-waving gangs have claimed all the territory in which it could be tried. Although it could be said that Somalia, outside the major cities where government control was and is the worst, is a fairly thriving anarcho-communist region.

To be honest, Libertarianism, and especially AnCap, are very young philosophies, at least in the "complete" form we see them in today. The first person to place the final piece of AnCap was Gustave de Molinari, in 1849. How long has the idea of "democracy" been around?

So if you're going to pursue this train of argument, you might as well go nag Miguel Alcubierre about why we don't have starships around Proxima Centauri or Gliese 581 yet. The answer will be the same: "Working on it, have a few hurdles to jump first."

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

[FirstAscent]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

No one is burdened with any obligation to answer your tangential topic change questions, because you have failed / neglected / declined to prove your earlier claims first.

Big letters. Tiny opinion. No one is burdened with doing anything here, did you know that? I will leave you to your current mind-state, as it is not my burden to provide you with further information. But maybe you learned something anyway - I didn't actually see you negate anything I said here. And I can't recall a single informative post made by you. All I recall was somebody named Rudd-O demanding that I cite sources, implying that one couldn't possibly find material on ice albedo feedback loops, glaciation, ocean densities, etc.

The world is out there beyond the little bubble you enshroud yourself in. Out of curiosity, do you have a favorite source you use for scientific news? It would be interesting to hear what it is.

[myrkul]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

Some of them are contradictory, such as "Why do they never get started? Why do they never last?" indicating that you are asking them from an agitated emotional state, but I will answer anyway.

There have been Libertarian societies. Even anarchic ones. Pennsylvania, for instance, had a period where nobody even tried to be boss. And not surprisingly, it was the most peaceful period of the colonial US. The United States of America were originally set up in a very libertarian framework. Lincoln decided that he didn't like that. (If you go back to the Articles of Confederation, it was even more libertarian, but a monopoly without the power to compel payment is a rather weak monopoly.)

Pieces have been tried, and worked quite well. They failed, of course, because they were only pieces. Medieval Iceland had a private justice system. That failed when it got bought out, because the judges didn't have the competition required to keep them honest. Pennsylvania failed to stay an anarchy because the Quakers were pacifists, and wouldn't fight back.

The complete package has never been tested, primarily, because these flag-waving gangs have claimed all the territory in which it could be tried. Although it could be said that Somalia, outside the major cities where government control was and is the worst, is a fairly thriving anarcho-communist region.

To be honest, Libertarianism, and especially AnCap, are very young philosophies, at least in the "complete" form we see them in today. The first person to place the final piece of AnCap was Gustave de Molinari, in 1849. How long has the idea of "democracy" been around?

So if you're going to pursue this train of argument, you might as well go nag Miguel Alcubierre about why we don't have starships around Proxima Centauri or Gliese 581 yet. The answer will be the same: "Working on it, have a few hurdles to jump first."

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

Notice how I explained why?

If you start up a reactor before you install the fuel system, and it shuts down because it ran out of fuel, is the reactor a failure?

Also, if you do a little research, you'll see that the Icelandic commonwealth lasted longer than the US has so far. Pretty decent track record, if you ask me.

[FirstAscent]

Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

Some of them are contradictory, such as "Why do they never get started? Why do they never last?" indicating that you are asking them from an agitated emotional state, but I will answer anyway.

There have been Libertarian societies. Even anarchic ones. Pennsylvania, for instance, had a period where nobody even tried to be boss. And not surprisingly, it was the most peaceful period of the colonial US. The United States of America were originally set up in a very libertarian framework. Lincoln decided that he didn't like that. (If you go back to the Articles of Confederation, it was even more libertarian, but a monopoly without the power to compel payment is a rather weak monopoly.)

Pieces have been tried, and worked quite well. They failed, of course, because they were only pieces. Medieval Iceland had a private justice system. That failed when it got bought out, because the judges didn't have the competition required to keep them honest. Pennsylvania failed to stay an anarchy because the Quakers were pacifists, and wouldn't fight back.

The complete package has never been tested, primarily, because these flag-waving gangs have claimed all the territory in which it could be tried. Although it could be said that Somalia, outside the major cities where government control was and is the worst, is a fairly thriving anarcho-communist region.

To be honest, Libertarianism, and especially AnCap, are very young philosophies, at least in the "complete" form we see them in today. The first person to place the final piece of AnCap was Gustave de Molinari, in 1849. How long has the idea of "democracy" been around?

So if you're going to pursue this train of argument, you might as well go nag Miguel Alcubierre about why we don't have starships around Proxima Centauri or Gliese 581 yet. The answer will be the same: "Working on it, have a few hurdles to jump first."

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

Notice how I explained why?

If you start up a reactor before you install the fuel system, and it fails because it ran out of fuel, is the reactor a failure?

I noticed you provided your own speculative opinion on what in theory you think should happen in the face of lacking any real data on the subject, and then here pontificate how such speculations are facts.

All I see are failures and Somalia. Such promise! Nice try.

[MoonShadow]

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example?  Democracies don't last either, none have survived more than 200 years without significant internal strife, including the US (which isn't a democracy anyway).  Monarchies have better records than that, if sustainablity is the high mark of a society.  The longest lasting democratic republic, and the closest thing to an civilization without a central governmental authority, was The 'Old' Swiss Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy) which lasted from 1307 to 1789.  Of course, even they had a period of civil conflict, so it's not a perfect example either.

What makes you think that the US will last longer?  Hell, I don't even expect the EU to finish the decade.

[myrkul]

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example? 

Well, forever, of course. 

[FirstAscent]

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example?  Democracies don't last either, none have survived more than 200 years without significant internal strife, including the US (which isn't a democracy anyway).  Monarchies have better records than that, if sustainablity is the high mark of a society.  The longest lasting democratic republic, and the closest thing to an civilization without a central governmental authority, was The 'Old' Swiss Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy) which lasted from 1307 to 1789.  Of course, even they had a period of civil conflict, so it's not a perfect example either.

What makes you think that the US will last longer?  Hell, I don't even expect the EU to finish the decade.

I would judge success based on a combination of several criteria:

- Significant in size relative to other democracies/nations/governments. In other words, not some tiny colony.
- Significant immunity to being overruled, changed, annexed, or taken over by another nation.
- Significant duration relative to other long enduring democracies

Furthermore, discount examples of isolated geographies in a historical world of low population and slow travel and communication times.

[MoonShadow]

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example?  Democracies don't last either, none have survived more than 200 years without significant internal strife, including the US (which isn't a democracy anyway).  Monarchies have better records than that, if sustainablity is the high mark of a society.  The longest lasting democratic republic, and the closest thing to an civilization without a central governmental authority, was The 'Old' Swiss Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy) which lasted from 1307 to 1789.  Of course, even they had a period of civil conflict, so it's not a perfect example either.

What makes you think that the US will last longer?  Hell, I don't even expect the EU to finish the decade.

I would judge success based on a combination of several criteria:

- Significant in size relative to other democracies/nations/governments. In other words, not some tiny colony.
- Significant immunity to being overruled, changed, annexed, or taken over by another nation.
- Significant duration relative to other long enduring democracies

Furthermore, discount examples of isolated geographies in a historical world of low population and slow travel and communication times.

Then it will prove impossible to present you with a viable example, probably ever.  Hell, I can think of no form of government that realisticly could.

[FirstAscent]

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example?  Democracies don't last either, none have survived more than 200 years without significant internal strife, including the US (which isn't a democracy anyway).  Monarchies have better records than that, if sustainablity is the high mark of a society.  The longest lasting democratic republic, and the closest thing to an civilization without a central governmental authority, was The 'Old' Swiss Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy) which lasted from 1307 to 1789.  Of course, even they had a period of civil conflict, so it's not a perfect example either.

What makes you think that the US will last longer?  Hell, I don't even expect the EU to finish the decade.

I would judge success based on a combination of several criteria:

- Significant in size relative to other democracies/nations/governments. In other words, not some tiny colony.
- Significant immunity to being overruled, changed, annexed, or taken over by another nation.
- Significant duration relative to other long enduring democracies

Furthermore, discount examples of isolated geographies in a historical world of low population and slow travel and communication times.

Then it will prove impossible to present you with a viable example, probably ever.  Hell, I can think of no form of government that realisticly could.

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

[bb113]

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example?  Democracies don't last either, none have survived more than 200 years without significant internal strife, including the US (which isn't a democracy anyway).  Monarchies have better records than that, if sustainablity is the high mark of a society.  The longest lasting democratic republic, and the closest thing to an civilization without a central governmental authority, was The 'Old' Swiss Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy) which lasted from 1307 to 1789.  Of course, even they had a period of civil conflict, so it's not a perfect example either.

What makes you think that the US will last longer?  Hell, I don't even expect the EU to finish the decade.

I would judge success based on a combination of several criteria:

- Significant in size relative to other democracies/nations/governments. In other words, not some tiny colony.
- Significant immunity to being overruled, changed, annexed, or taken over by another nation.
- Significant duration relative to other long enduring democracies

Furthermore, discount examples of isolated geographies in a historical world of low population and slow travel and communication times.

Then it will prove impossible to present you with a viable example, probably ever.  Hell, I can think of no form of government that realisticly could.

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

A couple hundred years ago the same could be said about democracies by people who supported monarchies. Dumb argument.

[MoonShadow]

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.

Still, the answer is in the data.  The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable.  The Penn State example is perfect for this.  It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments.  There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect.  Nothing is.  Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap?  I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability.  Any force, foreign or domestic, capable of developing to a certain level is able to overtake it.  If the US was still under the Articles of Confederation, I think that we would have lost the war of 1812 and lost our independence.  We almost lost anyway, despite the advanced level of federal order that the US Constitution provided.  AnCap theories of government do not provide well for the collective defense of the founding ideas, be that a physical defense from foreign powers or the defense of ideas.  Hell, neither does libertarianism for that matter.  It's a contradiction that we all want to live in a free society, but also wish to be protected from risk for ourselves and our children.  What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the socity with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.

[Richy_T]

First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.

Still, the answer is in the data.  The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable.  The Penn State example is perfect for this.  It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments.  There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect.  Nothing is.  Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap?  I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability.  Any force, foreign or domestic, capable of developing to a certain level is able to overtake it.  If the US was still under the Articles of Confederation, I think that we would have lost the war of 1812 and lost our independence.  We almost lost anyway, despite the advanced level of federal order that the US Constitution provided.  AnCap theories of government do not provide well for the collective defense of the founding ideas, be that a physical defense from foreign powers or the defense of ideas.  Hell, neither does libertarianism for that matter.  It's a contradiction that we all want to live in a free society, but also wish to be protected from risk for ourselves and our children.  What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the socity with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.

I consider libertarianism (and other similar ideologies) more as a signpost for the direction we should be traveling than as an ultimate destination.

[myrkul]

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

A couple hundred years ago the same could be said about democracies by people who supported monarchies. Dumb argument.

This. Also, that last bit could probably be re-used for all of FirstAscent's posts.

I suppose he's already nagging Alcubierre about getting that engine built.