I was posed a question recently: how do libertarians reconcile the fact that society tends to choose non-libertarianism? The context in which the question was posed emphasized the contradictory absurdity of the almost necessary creation of a libertarian dictator: one who could assume control and move society in a libertarian direction against the will of the people. It has made me think. While it is evident that libertarians are not in control of the government and it is true that the tendency toward expansion of government is a perpetual battle, I think society's progress toward libertarian ideals have been chosen, albeit gradually. Certainly people have become more free now than in the past, and the evolution of a semi-capitalist or hampered market economy is at least some advancement toward libertarian goals. What do you think?
Two things:
1. "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher
2. It's the government that often chooses a lack of freedom. Did you get to vote on the stimulus bill? I sure didn't...
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Cam Nedland:2. It's the government that often chooses a lack of freedom. Did you get to vote on the stimulus bill? I sure didn't..
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
fear and ignorance.
you could go back in time and pose similar questions. what did societies tend to choose with regard to the institution of slavery before the 18th century? (if you are unsure, read about it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Abolitionist_movements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
plenty of other examples. how do biologists and scientists of medicine reconcile the fact that societies tended to choose folk-medicine over rational cures (prior to the time when they stopped.....)
Here are a list of fallacies that are supposed in the question:
Argumentum ad Antiquitam.:- 'Statism is good since statism is old'
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, 'There is a lack of empirical evidence that anarcho-capitalist societies can prosper, ergo they could not prosper'
Non-Anticipation - 'If anarcho-capitalism was so great, by now there would have been a consensus that this was so'
Argumentum ad Numeram AND Argumentum ad Populam ': - 'the vast majority of people think that Statism is a superior state of affairs to anarcho-capitalism; all those people can't be wrong!'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
lutador:What do you think?
Just because they always have doesn't mean they always will (and as the first reply pointed out, what you call "society" is actually a collection of individuals with absolutely different goals and ideals). And it's not true that they always have; Iceland 930-1262 was a near libertarian society. Some have argued that the American West was broadly anarcho-capitalist. Certainly the USA has exhibited features of minarchism over its history.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Because society, being the sum of individuals and their interactions and associations, isn't made up of libertarians. Which is why top-down strategies for liberty will never be sufficient.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Because society remains primitive until a more advanced society conquers it.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
lutador:how do libertarians reconcile the fact that society tends to choose non-libertarianism?
Easy. Public opinion currently favors statism, and hence we have a statist society. When public opinion favors libertarianism, we will have a libertarian society. Since people have free will, it is bogus to say that something is "inevitable." All we have to do is change public opinion, and we can change society.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
nirgrahamUK:Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, 'There is a lack of empirical evidence that anarcho-capitalist societies can prosper, ergo they could not prosper'
Where is ignorance in that?
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
the fallacy, is that lack of evidence alone is not grounds for rejecting a thesis. If you have no evidence that I ate eggs today, that is not proof that I did not eat eggs today. your ignorance is no proof.
"how do libertarians reconcile the fact that society tends to choose non-libertarianism?"
Because most societies are collectivist. They view society as a "unit" that has values, just as though it were a living person. Any free-market or libertarianism is anti-collectivist. So of course people who believe in a society as I've described would never choose libertarianism or anything remotely close to it.
Cam Nedland: 1. "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher
I think she was wrong. My view is that there is a society, but the idea of "the public" is a state-perpetuated myth. "Public" just means privately owned by the government.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
I am predisposed to the theory of man are tribal. To be an individualist require a thought process that is contrarty to our nature as human beings.
Perhap statism is a natural consequences of these things.
Even so, just because it is natural, it doesn't mean that people should keep things as it is. Every individiual, must, and should exterminate this natural state(depending on contexts) whenever and where it appears.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
To nirgrahamUK:I think to say ‘fear and ignorance’ would be a hasty generalization. For one, I know the individual I was talking to is not necessarily afraid of anything, or ignorant of the libertarian movement. He has simply chosen his political belief from among many based on what he believes to be the best decision.Additionally, I think your proposal of ‘statism is good because statism is old’ is irrelevant in this conversation. A moral argument was never brought into the conversation. He merely made an observation that despite the libertarian’s views, it seems that in order for them to gain power or realize their beliefs, they would have to fight the will of the people. Something very against their principles.Additionally, he never said libertarian free markets societies couldn’t exist, so I think your argument that without evidence they don’t exist is also superfluous and irrelevant. There is also no assumption about the greatness of libertarianism or the extent to the validity of the people, so, again, I do not see the purpose of posting those logical fallacies.
To Cam Nedland:Perhaps I should've been more careful in my wording. I did not mean to imply that society as a whole is acting as a single organism. I meant that often the vast majority is content to move away from libertarian values. It seems the erosion of libertarian values is more constant than their maintenance. As Jefferson noted: "Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. The time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war, we shall be going downhill.... It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the People for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which will not be knocked off at the conclusion of the war, will remain on as long, will be made heavier and heavier, til our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. The people will be taxed for Fifteen-sixteenths of their production. They will themselves pay the wages for those who place the shackles upon their own hands and feet." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. (*) ME 2:225Second, while I am aware that the government is often the most visible instrument of oppression, it must be remembered that it is a representative government.
lutador: Certainly people have become more free now than in the past, and the evolution of a semi-capitalist or hampered market economy is at least some advancement toward libertarian goals. What do you think?
Certainly people have become more free now than in the past, and the evolution of a semi-capitalist or hampered market economy is at least some advancement toward libertarian goals. What do you think?
Oh no, they were much freer in the early 1800's than now. Government had hardly started to grow.
As to why: humans most basic emotions are fear and suspision. We have evolved from mammals and those 2 instinctive emotions were are still are critical to survival. Today they do not need to be used, usually, in the same way. But they are still the most basic and prevalent, and necessary.
Humans, like mammals, also tend to trust others who are like themselves much more than those who are different from themselves - in any and all ways. We trust on this basis very foolishly, by instinct and without thought. Knowing this, there is a desire to look like, and be like, others of our kind. Ancient peoples knew that the way to make a prophet (or an independent thinker) was to throw him out into the desert (maybe with an adult hermit) as a child. (See the Biblical old Testament.)
Suppose, just suppose, that you woke up tomorrow morning to hear on the news that every member, elected, appointed, or hired, of Federal and (all) State governments, and all Union leaderers, were dead. Only City and County governments remained. How would you feel? What would you think? What would you fear? What would you be suspicious of? Further suppose that there were impervious unseen walls continuously around the national borders of our country (and all others).
What do you think people would do? What would you do?
lutador:I did not mean to imply that society as a whole is acting as a single organism. I meant that often the vast majority is content to move away from libertarian values.
But the vast majority of people live their lives by the NAP. Or at least some very close relative of it. Most people recoil at the idea of using coersion as a tool in their daily lives.
The problem is that the state allows people to pretend that they aren't supporting coersion because they don't have to stare it in the face. This may be the one thing that the state does effectively: allowing people to ignore reality.
nirgrahamUK:fear and ignorance.
I would add faith.
I consider government to be the one market failure.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Society does not choose power. Society is bamboozeld and forced to accept power. The question instead is how come societies are so often unable to resist the onslaught of power. The anwser is perhaps to be found in the law of concentrated benefit over diffuse injury and division of labour. 50 shoemakers happy to make shoes are no match for 1 intellectual and 1 policeman - both of which are highly motivated due to great benetifs to themselves and both of which are specialists in the key fields of ideas and force - thus power is at a distinct advantage.
Sage:Easy. Public opinion currently favors statism, and hence we have a statist society. When public opinion favors libertarianism, we will have a libertarian society. Since people have free will, it is bogus to say that something is "inevitable." All we have to do is change public opinion, and we can change society.
This. And this, and for more detail this.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap