Is libertarianism only possible in a highly educated society of freedom loving freaks?

CorporateGhost:

People wold have to understand that it is fallacious and inefficient first, in order to oppose it.

No one is proposing otherwise.  Education is the key.

CorporateGhost:

GilesStratton:

Do you think people in Somalia care about freedom?

I'm sure a lot of them do, just like a lot of people cared about freedom in the Russian and Cuban revolutions, but without a well informed and educated majority that kind of things always end in disasters.

 

Well educated about what exactly? Nobody in Somalia has even heard about the NAP.

CorporateGhost:

I see what you mean but I don't think that the moral arguments will be convincing if the majority of people believe that doing whats morally right will lead society to chaos and poverty.

How does doing what's good become chaos?  While you're doing good, then ones perspective is looking out for the good, instead of trying to uphold what's immoral.

CorporateGhost:

And you don't need to spend your entire life studying economics to understand the superiority of the market economy, but you do need interest and motivation to do it, and that's something I don't see in many people.

People do it everyday now.  It's not something new.  What's new is the State's Keynesian.  What's old and ancient and been on-going is the free market.  I gave you an example above and you seemed to have glared over it or maybe thought it too simpleton maybe.  I make a clay pot.  It's mine.  Maybe I sell, maybe I don't.  

CorporateGhost:

[edited]: the current (Keynesian) system continues existing because people believe that it has intellectual legitimacy and that it can bring some prosperity  (not to mention state coercion enforcing it).People wold have to understand that it is fallacious and inefficient first, in order to oppose it.

of course

Stranger:

Sukrit Sabhlok:

I don't think anarcho-capitalism is possible, however moderate libertarianism IS possible.

18th and 19th century American history shows that if an informed mass of the people support a limited state, we can get reasonably small government. 

The choice to be an anarcho-capitalist is a utopian one. It shows precisely how absurd the current institutions are, but practically all anarcho-capitalists resign themselves to accepting that their ideal world will never come about.

 

I find these types of arguments deluded. In practice no limited state has ever been created out of a more powerful state. The 18th and 19th involved violent revolutions to replace powerful states with different kinds serving different groups.

There is no blueprint for creating a minimal state whatsoever.

    Not to leave out the fact that there were the Articles of Confederation and then the colonies persuaded by strong federal central government ideologies that greatly admired the British Empire (where the sun never set) got rid of that document very quickly and signed onto the more Federalized version called the U.S. Constitution.  Then not to mention during Washington's Presidential terms (first president if any didn't know) Jefferson quit as Sec. of State cause Hamilton the aspirant to making a U.S. Empire as large or larger than the British Empire won his central bank.  So even before the U.S. had a Constitution it was growing big, big, and bigger and never looked back.  Heck when John Adams was president Hamilton wanted to march a U.S. army to the tip of South America and claim it all as a U.S. Empire.  Adams disbanded the army, but those federalist forces never gave up and now the U.S. has the biggest Empire the historical world has ever experienced. 

 

GilesStratton:

CorporateGhost:

GilesStratton:

Do you think people in Somalia care about freedom?

I'm sure a lot of them do, just like a lot of people cared about freedom in the Russian and Cuban revolutions, but without a well informed and educated majority that kind of things always end in disasters.

 

 Well educated about what exactly? Nobody in Somalia has even heard about the NAP.

So your point is that Somalia is an example of how an uneducated society can have  libertarian anarchism? if that's the case, why are you not moving to Somalia?

I didn't said that Somalia was an educated society,what I said is precisely the opposite, since Somalia is not an educated society it is no libertarian paradise and that's why we are not moving there.If most people in Somalia were educated in economics and libertarian theory it would surely become a libertarian society, but without that education any revolution or momentary anarchy will end up whit a socialist regime in charge.

oops, double post.

GilesStratton:

Well educated about what exactly? Nobody in Somalia has even heard about the NAP.

I think at least one person has heard.

CorporateGhost:

No one is gona defend an ideoligy if they don'tunderstand it.

Yet people defend ideologies without understanding them, since there are people who defend the state without knowing what it does.

wilderness:

How does doing what's good become chaos?

It doesn't. And yet most people believe that abolishing the current state will bring chaos, even if you convince them that the current state is immoral,it would no be enough to convince them of supporting the abolition of the state.You need to prove to them that the stateless society wold be more efficient.

wilderness:

I gave you an example above and you seemed to have glared over it or maybe thought it too simpleton maybe.  I make a clay pot.  It's mine.  Maybe I sell, maybe I don't. 

That's an example of private property,not of an stateless libertarian society.I know property and the market have existed pretty much since man appear and that is not necessary for everybody understand them so that they can exist.But for people to prefer the free market over other systems and fight to defend it they would first have to understand it.No one is gonna defend an ideology if they don't understand it.

eliotn:

CorporateGhost:

No one is gona defend an ideoligy if they don'tunderstand it.

Yet people defend ideologies without understanding them, since there are people who defend the state without knowing what it does.

Good point, but they defend it because its what they know, the status quo.If you want them to change you have to convince them that you idea is better, and convincing them implies that they have understand your ideology.

CorporateGhost:

So your point is that Somalia is an example of how an uneducated society can have  libertarian anarchism? if that's the case, why are you not moving to Somalia?

Because there are things more important to  me than living in a stateless society. Also, defense in Somalia is mainly provided by families, and as far as I'm aware I've not too much family over there.

CorporateGhost:

I didn't said that Somalia was an educated society,what I said is precisely the opposite, since Somalia is not an educated society it is no libertarian paradise and that's why we are not moving there.

 

People aren't moving to Somalia because they don't like the idea of living among dirty people with dark coloured  skin. If the exact same thing was happening in a country populated by civilized people so called "libertarians" would be far more likely to go there. As it is, they can't stand giving up their Starbucks or whatever else.

CorporateGhost:

If most people in Somalia were educated in economics and libertarian theory it would surely become a libertarian society, but without that education any revolution or momentary anarchy will end up whit a socialist regime in charge.

Outside of foreign intervention how do you suppose that happens? By the way, government can only arise from anarchy in the form of a monarchy, which is already preferable to today's social democracies.

People having dark skin implies being uncivilized how?

CorporateGhost:

wilderness:

How does doing what's good become chaos?

It doesn't. And yet most people believe that abolishing the current state will bring chaos, even if you convince them that the current state is immoral,it would no be enough to convince them of supporting the abolition of the state.You need to prove to them that the stateless society wold be more efficient.

wilderness:

I gave you an example above and you seemed to have glared over it or maybe thought it too simpleton maybe.  I make a clay pot.  It's mine.  Maybe I sell, maybe I don't. 

That's an example of private property,not of an stateless libertarian society.I know property and the market have existed pretty much since man appear and that is not necessary for everybody understand them so that they can exist.But for people to prefer the free market over other systems and fight to defend it they would first have to understand it.No one is gonna defend an ideology if they don't understand it.

   They're statist what do expect.

 

scineram:

People having dark skin implies being uncivilized how?

He's making the point that most libertarians stop off at Starbucks for a $6 latte before they protest the FED from their lawn chair.

No one wants to build a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist territory from scratch.  They want it built for them.

I don't think somalia is anarchy in any way. It is a tribalist society which is a primitive form of statism. Even if you argue that it is anarchy, it is not a anarcho capitalist since they have no respect or recognition for the fundamental principle of capitalism which is property rights.

I don't think somalia is anarchy in any way. It is a tribalist society which is a primitive form of statism.

+1

I do wonder why (some) libertarians think somalia is a (good) example of freedom at work. Yeah, I think I heard there are unregulated providers of wireless telephony there. And despite lacking a central government the country has not collapsed into MORE chaos than the usual amount of chaos that exists there. But they are not the poster child for a free society are they ?

Nonsense.  The Somalians take property rights extremely seriously.  If you don't believe me, go there and climb on somebody's cell phone tower or stomp around somebody's vegetable garden and see what happens to you.

The problem anarchists have with Somalia, as Giles pointed out, is it's populated by dirty people with dark colored skin whose preferences differ from the preferences of middle class white college students.

Juan:

But they are not the poster child for a free society are they ?

They seem pretty free to me.  They don't have the kind of society that free cosmopolitan whites would create but that's their business.

Thanks for your input Byzantine. I already know your conservative, tribalist, 'racially conscious' party line pretty well. I was hoping to hear some thoughts from people with a better grasp of libertarian philosophy.

wilderness:

I gave you an example above and you seemed to have glared over it or maybe thought it too simpleton maybe.  I make a clay pot.  It's mine.  Maybe I sell, maybe I don't. 

CorporateGhost:

That's an example of private property,not of an stateless libertarian society.I know property and the market have existed pretty much since man appear and that is not necessary for everybody understand them so that they can exist.But for people to prefer the free market over other systems and fight to defend it they would first have to understand it.No one is gonna defend an ideology if they don't understand it.

    Private property (natural property) is a form of what happens politically in a stateless libertarian society.