Rixcross, I completely agree that people who demand to know what will happen to the disadvantaged deserve an answer. Like I said, it simply won't do to assure them that there will be opportunities for these people to take care of themselves. But the first question the decentralist must pose is whether or not this is a problem which requires a centralized solution. Personally, I don't find this to be the case. I do think that a real case can be made that a community that allows people to starve to death is a failed community, and that communities need to find a way to deal with the problem. But first, I don't think that it needs to be done through centralized planning, and second, I don't think that the community on which this obligation falls is always going to be something on the scale of a state, a country, or all of humanity. But like I said, a lot more needs to be said about this issue, and I'd be all for trying to help coordinate any efforts to carry on that discussion.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
On Agorism, I'm not sure that my approach requires any particular stance on whether or not it's a good idea. I think that it can be complemented by the approach I'm exploring, and I don't see any reason that we should need to be hostile towards each other. Indeed, some day the Agorists may well find themselves the subjects of research which might then be used to educate people on the possibilities for decentralization! So while I understand that it's a pretty emotional issue, I don't think there needs to be any animosity "between camps." I think we all recognize that the Agorist program is a well-intentioned venture, and I think ours is too. So let's just agree to disagree on the means, and work towards the end of realizing a better society.
Yes, I could see people banding together based on race, religion, occupation or simple location. Charities could deal with those that fall through the cracks. But again, it is kind of a wait and see answer (not to say it is not correct, simply pointing out that many people may find this unacceptable).
Well not necessarily. In every scenario, things only get done when people actually do them. This is true of centralized government solutions as well as decentralized ones. So it's not necessarily a "wait and see" approach versus a "here's how it'll be done" approach. Rather, both can be thought of in either way. When governments solve problems, we need to "wait and see" how the central planners will decide to get things done, but we can think about their decision in ends-means terms; that is, we can analyze "how it might be done." The same thing is true when a decentralized system faces a problem. The question we need to answer is whether it is really a good idea to entrust these problems to central planners, or whether it would allow for more flexible, effective, and creative solutions if we took steps to decentralize the planning. I don't think we necessarily need to approach these issues from the standpoint of trying to "prove" anything. Advocates of decentralization generally feel like their position is the one which makes the most sense given the available evidence. Accordingly, we can test their claim just fine while still being objective and impartial. We can examine the mechanism by which central authorities make and implement policies, and we can search for alternatives that don't rely on centralized decision-making. If, at the end of the day, we determine that the decentralized solution makes the most sense, then that's really all we need to say.
Clearly centralized governments make mess of things, but the point I was trying to raise was that atleast things are in place to attempt to fix these problems. I think what truly scares people about a system such as that an intangible thing like the "free market" will be the only thing protecting the welfare of the poor, disabled, and in fact all of society. When people feel slightly at least they have the government to turn to and ask for assistance.
Surely the two of us and most everyone on this forum has well-justified respect for the free markets ability to solve problems, though this is probably not the view point of the majority of the world.
I think the problem is even more psychological than that. I think deep down people are worried that if the *** hits the fan, they will be responsible for their own well-being. It is very comforting to know that there is an entity out their whose goal is our protection and well-being. Obviously, this entity has strained far from its original purpose, but even in this case, at least people in trouble have someone to blame. Assigning blame seems to be paramount in this country, even more important than solving the actual problem. What may really scare people about an anarchial society is that if things go wrong, they will have nothing to blame but themselves.
rixross: I think deep down people are worried that if the *** hits the fan, they will be responsible for their own well-being.
It is too late to say "How do we stop the **** from hitting the fan?" The *** is airborne, and the fan is set to maximum. At this point, all we can do is go around giving people ****-resistant smocks.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
I don't see why that would necessarily be true, Rixcross. People could voluntarily enter into agreements which would shield them against risk just like the central government does, even in a decentralized system.
Then delegitimize their god - guarantees on a piece of paper mean nothing in the absence of a will and a way to put them into effect. What this means is that, for the most part, the state's promises are empty, and at worst it will make a mess of things it is supposed to oversee. If practical results are what matter, rather than hollow guarantees, I think decentralization has the upper hand. This is without even asking the question of whether one is even entitled to force another to provide for them.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Right, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. But I'm wondering if people would be on board with working on actually doing the legwork necessary to make these arguments as convincing as they need to be in order to really reach a firm conclusion?
Donny - what you are talking about is something I have been chewing on for quite a while. I'm discussing libertarian ideas at work and with friends, and I find that I always face the same 'objections' - but what about the poor? But what about the environment? etc. etc.
What would indeed be necessary is systematic analysis of these topics from a libertarian perspective. In the long run, this would probably become quite extensive and touch on an incredibly wide range of topics.
The problem we are facing really is that a free society would be radically different in many subtle ways from what we have right now, and many people simply cannot picture what it could look like. So, your 'project', if one may call it that, is definetely needed.
While writing these few lines, it occurred to me that one could approach this through a wiki format - a libertarian wiki, where all these issues could be discussed by topic, and slowly be developed over time. A lot of the discussions here are worthwhile, but they are taking place largely in an echo chamber.
I don't have the computer skills to set this up, but maybe somebody here does?
A Mises Wiki, so to say, with Mises Instituted affiliated scholars as administrators - at least initially.
Then one could deal with all kinds of issues, such as 'poor people', environment, child abuse, social deviance, crime, religion.
That's the only real format I can think of that could be of use in the internet environment.
I would be more than happy to take part in that.
Cheers
Hmm...that's a really interesting idea. I'm actually going to try to pitch my idea to FEE in the fall, and I'll definitely bring that up. I'll keep you posted on what's going on.
Rather than wait for mises.org to get a wiki or make our own, there are already libertarian wikis out there so we can get started right now. I found one and started what you guys have in mind. I'm not sure if it's the best format or the best way to do it but it is out there now it is a start.
Here's some of the initial stuff I put up:
WarAbuse By The EliteWMDsActing For Dead ClientsIdentificationFire ProtectionIntellectual PropertyCriminalsThe Uninsured
There's a lot more that can be done here. This will be a massive undertaking. So who's going to help?
http://libertarianwiki.org/Market_Anarchy_Implementation
Good idea - terrible format. :)
I'll look into it once back from my company retreat.
So, what IS going on?
I might add in some sections on Aristotelian approaches to liberty if desired.
dietwald: Good idea - terrible format. :) I'll look into it once back from my company retreat.
lol, yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I've been working on coming up with a better format. I think I've got one now. The new format very clearly identifies what assumptions are involved in each statement, is a lot more flexible and eaiser to read. It requires a little more on the editors part but I don't know if I can really get around that. Anyway, check it out and let me know what you guys think. Is this new format going to work or can we do better still?http://libertarianwiki.org/Market_Anarchy_Implementation_New_Format
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