Libertarian Summer Camp

[doodle]

On today's Planet Money, we travel to a place where people are trying to live without government interference. A place where you can use bits of silver to buy uninspected bacon. A place where a 9-year-old will sell you alcohol.

It's the 2011 Porcupine Freedom Festival, known to its friends as PorcFest. It's the summer festival for people who think we should return to the gold standard and abolish the IRS.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/ ... ummer-camp

[Libertarian666]

NPR has the same depth of understanding of libertarianism as an amoeba, and the same goes for the commenters who claim that there are developing countries with no government interference in society.

Actually, that's probably an insult to amoebas, who as far as I know don't try to ridicule something they have no notion about.

[moda0306]

Judging by the pridictions on the nature of civil engagement, monopolies, productivity, prosperity, and harmony that most libertarians have about "if the government would just go away," vs. what would actually happen, I don't think most libertarians really understand libertarianism, either.

What most libertarians understand is that they don't like being told what to do, but like the comforts they've become accustomed to, so they build a convenient logical framework that fits their emotional state towards being nannied, but leave enough holes in it so they have court houses, roads, and a military at least big enough to play defense.

In fact, most libertarians aren't libertarians at all... just people who like to choose their forms of coercion and somewhat condescendingly look at those with differing opinions on what the proper forms of coercion should be as "tyrants" enslaving them against their will.

To be clear, I think two of the most morally superior parties are libertariasm and the green party.  Both have some very unshakable logic, though many of their premises are opposing .  I just like to hold their feet to the fire more than the ridiculous, ambiguous, hyperbole-ridden non-logic of Democrats and Republicans.  I could probably say all these bad things and worse about Dems and Repubs in spades.  Even the green party is clumsy in their logic, and they attach themselves not-so-loosely with socialism so they have their own issues.

[MediumTex]

I predict that this summer camp will be raided by an FDA SWAT team and be audited by the IRS.

[Pointedstick]

What most libertarians understand is that they don't like being told what to do, but like the comforts they've become accustomed to, so they build a convenient logical framework that fits their emotional state towards being nannied, but leave enough holes in it so they have court houses, roads, and a military at least big enough to play defense.

I don't think that's accurate. I would characterize the typical libertarian sentiment as not wanting to be subject to restrictions absent prior consent.

Libertarians are generally fine being told what to do in matters where they have signed a contract and knew what they were getting into. They consented to it. For example, my apartment complex forbids me to hang things from my balcony. I don't bristle at this restriction; I consented when I signed the lease.

Now, two years ago, my apartment complex tried to alter the agreement and make everyone pay for a "valet trash" service; it wasn't in the lease so there was outrage over it. Not just me, but all my neighbors were up in arms. Because they hadn't consented, and it represented a new charge.

The differentiating factor isn't "being told what to do" vs "perfect freedom", it's agreeing to restrictions on your life that you choose vs someone else choosing to restrict you in their preferred ways irrespective of your consent.

I think most libertarians would actually welcome a hypothetical government that made you sign a contract--even a very restrictive contract--before entering its domain or becoming a citizen, in exchange for not being able to alter that contract unilaterally.

[Pointedstick]

The audio commentary was actually pretty interesting. The hosts were somewhat incredulous, but gave it a shot and generally characterized the libertarian positions rather fairly. And they acknowledged a lot of merit to many of the libertarians' arguments, especially the ones made against occupational licensure, liquor laws, and similar things. They pointed out quite correctly that most of these laws do nothing except protect entrenched industries with political pull.

One point they kept harping on was the impracticality of using physical precious metals for commerce. Converting ounces to grams, measuring the spot price of silver in dollars... I think there's a good point to be made that stable prices are important for commerce, and commodities are inherently unstable in price. Personally I think a libertarian society would use a fiat currency or some sort. Even if it's "gold certificates" that were actually backed by something… you pretty much need something that doesn't require a physical transaction for any kind of mail order or internet commerce to work well.

But in the end, I think the strongest argument was that nothing bad at all happened. Despite one of the host's spending his whole day at the camp, nobody died. Nobody was injured. Everybody was happy. Commerce was transacted smoothly. It didn't devolve into warre-of-all-againste-all law of the jungle anarchy. The whole argument for the laws that these folks were breaking is that they're necessary to ensure health and safety. Breaking them and maintaining those anyway speaks more powerfully than any logical argument could.

[moda0306]

PS,

I agree... I was simplifying things a bit and I know the devil's in the details.  But I'd add that I think that there's something within all of us (some way more than others) that doesn't like being told what to do, regardless of whether we've signed up for it.  It's people like you that are a lot more mature about the way they approach economic arrangements that are in a more comfortable place.

In a lot of ways I don't have a problem with voluntary government, but the problem is that there has to be agreement as to the size of the domain to be governed, and most of these domains already exist.  For instance, if, for some reason, the federal government fell apart and somehow everything continued in a relatively stable manner, would states have authority over their previously-arbitrarily set up domains?  If so, would they go around and have people "sign up" for those governments?  What if I don't want to sign up to be under Minnesota's authority?  Do I have to move out, or am I just not a citizen?  Both have huge issues. 

Further, what if individual cities or individual neighborhoods want to "secede" from the "United Cities of Minnesota?"  That would be the only way to put a "check" on state power.  And who decides whether these cities secede?  A 51% majority of the city?  What if I'm part of the 49% and want to remain a Minnesota citizen?  Do I have to move or what?

If you drill down into "voluntary citizenship" it's a black hole of ambiguity of authority that, in the end, probably gives me less freedom and far less security and prosperity than just filling out my damn 1040 every year and having to send mail via the USPS.



Even if we go back to the "desert island" examples we've used in the past (to avoid the pesky complications of an existing system that is hard to imagine peacably collapsing (to some))...

You still end up with a bunch of people on an island claiming resources as their own, and a government trying to build itself as legitimate around that.  But if individual sovereignty comes before government, how can a government, voluntary or not, ever be established?  If I take up "Island Parcel A" and another shipwrecked shlub takes "Island Parcel B" and so-on and so-forth, what does 2/3 of us coming togther to form a government accomplish?  Either we can annex the last 1/3 against their will, or we can just not have them be part of the government (the latter probably much more consistent with libertarian logic).

But the decision to secede would still have to be left with each individual to have a government that respects individual sovereignty.  That leaves things very fragile.  One "ruling" by the government might upset all established order and coordination, as each person decides to secede from a dying union.  I truly think this is why we don't see these libertarian dreamscapes anywhere... they're so damn fragile, and in spite of peoples rhetoric around seeking freedom, they like to know that the world around them isn't going to change drastically if they're going to go through all the work of building a better widget and widget factory. 

And lastly, isn't any government that governs a prescribed area but gives you the right to leave essentially a "voluntary government" if you look at the individual's true freedom?  A government, by its very nature, has to have a prescribed area of governance.  Just by being born there and continuing to live there, one would think that you've submitted to that governance, because you have the right to leave, but haven't.

Maybe in another century we can live "governmentless" in a physical sense and submit to "online societies," but I think our will to look less like rural Mississippi and more like Manhattan will make government coordination, interdependence, regulation, and (gasp) public transportation more pertinent, not less.

[Pointedstick]

I agree... I was simplifying things a bit and I know the devil's in the details.  But I'd add that I think that there's something within all of us (some way more than others) that doesn't like being told what to do, regardless of whether we've signed up for it.

I would characterize that as part of growing up. We're always restricted in some way. I decided to get married and now my ability to wander, travel, and live like a hobo is restricted. We decided to have a child so now much of my free time is restricted. I don't have a private rocket ship so I'm restricted from taking a vacation on the moon. This whole "perfect freedom" ideal is a juvenile delusion. Even a nomadic hunter gatherer had wild animals telling him what to do ("don't come here or I'll eat you").

"Freedom" is so much about how you define it that I don't think it makes any sense at all to lend any credence the idea idea that we can ever be free of any restrictions on our behavior, except maybe if we ever live totally virtual lives in holodecks or VR simulators or something.

[doodle]

Again, I'm going to put a plug in for this course.

https://www.coursera.org/course/humankind

Libertarianism is just another man made concept that we have hatched up to try to force some organizing principle on an amoral and relativistic universe. While I think the idea of freedom is great, I believe there is a strong argument that can be made that it is an entirely fictional concept that does not exist. In other words, libertarianism starts with a premise (we are independent, individual beings with free will) that violates (in my opinion) the fundamental reality of the universe. I would argue that humans are dependent beings operating in a mutualistic / symbiotic universe and their behavior is largely deterministic and a product of their genetics and present knowledge / experience. If the latter is in fact true, it would seem to undermine the very foundation of libertarianism....

[Libertarian666]

What most libertarians understand is that they don't like being told what to do, but like the comforts they've become accustomed to, so they build a convenient logical framework that fits their emotional state towards being nannied, but leave enough holes in it so they have court houses, roads, and a military at least big enough to play defense.

I don't think that's accurate. I would characterize the typical libertarian sentiment as not wanting to be subject to restrictions absent prior consent.

Libertarians are generally fine being told what to do in matters where they have signed a contract and knew what they were getting into. They consented to it. For example, my apartment complex forbids me to hang things from my balcony. I don't bristle at this restriction; I consented when I signed the lease.

Now, two years ago, my apartment complex tried to alter the agreement and make everyone pay for a "valet trash" service; it wasn't in the lease so there was outrage over it. Not just me, but all my neighbors were up in arms. Because they hadn't consented, and it represented a new charge.

The differentiating factor isn't "being told what to do" vs "perfect freedom", it's agreeing to restrictions on your life that you choose vs someone else choosing to restrict you in their preferred ways irrespective of your consent.

I think most libertarians would actually welcome a hypothetical government that made you sign a contract--even a very restrictive contract--before entering its domain or becoming a citizen, in exchange for not being able to alter that contract unilaterally.

I certainly would be happy to sign such a contract with any reasonable set of terms, even a restrictive set ... if there were an independent agency that could enforce it on the government as well as on me.

[Pointedstick]

In other words, libertarianism starts with a premise (we are independent, individual beings with free will) that violates (in my opinion) the fundamental reality of the universe. I would argue that humans are dependent beings operating in a mutualistic / symbiotic universe and their behavior is largely deterministic and a product of their genetics and present knowledge / experience.

Well, I think the course (I'm taking it too!) indicates that we're actually both. We're a social species, yet we also have individuality. Interdependence doesn't subsume our individuality. Each individual adult is actually quite capable of leaving the group; we only need the group for reproduction (biologically speaking, that is).

Of course your assertion about genetics and experience is something different. That's an argument against free will entirely, which gets into the realm of the purely philosophical. The problem I have with that assertion is that it is unverifiable. So it may well be true, but if I cannot possibly ever know whether or not it actually is, there's no sense trying to make a decision based on it. I have to make a judgement call, and my personal judgement is that free will exists and we both have it.

[doodle]

What most libertarians understand is that they don't like being told what to do, but like the comforts they've become accustomed to, so they build a convenient logical framework that fits their emotional state towards being nannied, but leave enough holes in it so they have court houses, roads, and a military at least big enough to play defense.

I don't think that's accurate. I would characterize the typical libertarian sentiment as not wanting to be subject to restrictions absent prior consent.

Libertarians are generally fine being told what to do in matters where they have signed a contract and knew what they were getting into. They consented to it. For example, my apartment complex forbids me to hang things from my balcony. I don't bristle at this restriction; I consented when I signed the lease.

Now, two years ago, my apartment complex tried to alter the agreement and make everyone pay for a "valet trash" service; it wasn't in the lease so there was outrage over it. Not just me, but all my neighbors were up in arms. Because they hadn't consented, and it represented a new charge.

The differentiating factor isn't "being told what to do" vs "perfect freedom", it's agreeing to restrictions on your life that you choose vs someone else choosing to restrict you in their preferred ways irrespective of your consent.

I think most libertarians would actually welcome a hypothetical government that made you sign a contract--even a very restrictive contract--before entering its domain or becoming a citizen, in exchange for not being able to alter that contract unilaterally.

I certainly would be happy to sign such a contract with any reasonable set of terms, even a restrictive set ... if there were an independent agency that could enforce it on the government as well as on me.

What most libertarians understand is that they don't like being told what to do, but like the comforts they've become accustomed to, so they build a convenient logical framework that fits their emotional state towards being nannied, but leave enough holes in it so they have court houses, roads, and a military at least big enough to play defense.

I don't think that's accurate. I would characterize the typical libertarian sentiment as not wanting to be subject to restrictions absent prior consent.

Libertarians are generally fine being told what to do in matters where they have signed a contract and knew what they were getting into. They consented to it. For example, my apartment complex forbids me to hang things from my balcony. I don't bristle at this restriction; I consented when I signed the lease.

Now, two years ago, my apartment complex tried to alter the agreement and make everyone pay for a "valet trash" service; it wasn't in the lease so there was outrage over it. Not just me, but all my neighbors were up in arms. Because they hadn't consented, and it represented a new charge.

The differentiating factor isn't "being told what to do" vs "perfect freedom", it's agreeing to restrictions on your life that you choose vs someone else choosing to restrict you in their preferred ways irrespective of your consent.

I think most libertarians would actually welcome a hypothetical government that made you sign a contract--even a very restrictive contract--before entering its domain or becoming a citizen, in exchange for not being able to alter that contract unilaterally.

I certainly would be happy to sign such a contract with any reasonable set of terms, even a restrictive set ... if there were an independent agency that could enforce it on the government as well as on me.

Who would watch the independent agency then? How is our government any different than an independent agency anyways? I mean, technically we can fire everyone in it and abolish the whole thing tomorrow if enough people so choose.

[Benko]

I think that there's something within all of us (some way more than others) that doesn't like being told what to do,

On the other hand, there is a strong streak in a number of people today who wish very strongly to tell other people what to do.

Was this present in the 60s liberals and PS in his liberal days? (sorry, PS you are a principled, rational, handy example).

If they wanted to ensure health care for all, why not just provide health care for people who couldn't afford it and leave everyone else alone?

[doodle]

In other words, libertarianism starts with a premise (we are independent, individual beings with free will) that violates (in my opinion) the fundamental reality of the universe. I would argue that humans are dependent beings operating in a mutualistic / symbiotic universe and their behavior is largely deterministic and a product of their genetics and present knowledge / experience.

Well, I think the course (I'm taking it too!) indicates that we're actually both. We're a social species, yet we also have individuality. Interdependence doesn't subsume our individuality. Each individual adult is actually quite capable of leaving the group; we only need the group for reproduction (biologically speaking, that is).

Of course your assertion about genetics and experience is something different. That's an argument against free will entirely, which gets into the realm of the purely philosophical. The problem I have with that assertion is that it is unverifiable. So it may well be true, but if I cannot possibly ever know whether or not it actually is, there's no sense trying to make a decision based on it. I have to make a judgement call, and my personal judgement is that free will exists and we both have it.

Sorry, I could really go out into deep space on this philosophical topic. Anyways, there is a particular perspective that has caused me to look at things a little differently over the last year. It concerns the question of "who am I?". I mean, the statement "I am free" is devoid of meaning unless we understand what the "I" means, right?

While we like to think of ourselves as individual material beings, some people argue that we are in fact the dependent confluence of a series of events. While this seems like a spiritual topic, I think it is firmly rooted in science. Take a rainbow as an analogy to a human being. What is that rainbow? Is it an independent thing in and of itself? Does it have an inner rainbow essence? Or, is it rather the confluence of a series of other events? While a rainbow might seem like an independent "thing", isn't it just sunlight and water vapor and angles and refraction? If that is the case, then there really is no such thing as a rainbow in and of itself...it is merely a dependent event. The same would go for anything that you look at deeply. When you really begin to dig into something and look for an independent essence, all you find is a confluence of events that give rise to it. So while we can talk about freedom and individuality and independence on one level, ultimately these things seem to just be convenient concepts that we have created that in fact don't ultimately really exist.

[moda0306]

Benko,

That will to control also applies to a lot of libertarians.  They don't like the world around them to some degree, and rather than removing themselves from that world, they want to claim the forces of that world to be illegitimate and enslaving of them.  They want to be left alone to control the resources they think they've earned, rightfully or not, and often DO ask that if we have disagreements as to whether they actually have rights to those assets, to consult a government of their liking that thinks the way they do.

Even anarchists, rather than moving to somewhere where the government can't or won't touch them, choose to often stay in suburbia or big cities and continue to complain about everything they choose to surround themselves with.



PS,

If individualism and unavoidable interdependence (not just a social nature, but an actual dependence on shared spaces, resources, and often skills) are both present, and I think both doodle and I would agree that they are, then isn't an organizational system that respects both of those realities the most appropriate system?

Libertarianism seems to only respect the individuality reality, not the "stranded on an island together with limited resources" reality.  Shouldn't we start from a modified premise from pure individuality?

[doodle]

The irony is that once you start to see reality, you cease to exist....which makes life a little complicated. :-) It's almost like finishing the last level of a video game....after that its game over.

[moda0306]

In other words, libertarianism starts with a premise (we are independent, individual beings with free will) that violates (in my opinion) the fundamental reality of the universe. I would argue that humans are dependent beings operating in a mutualistic / symbiotic universe and their behavior is largely deterministic and a product of their genetics and present knowledge / experience.

Well, I think the course (I'm taking it too!) indicates that we're actually both. We're a social species, yet we also have individuality. Interdependence doesn't subsume our individuality. Each individual adult is actually quite capable of leaving the group; we only need the group for reproduction (biologically speaking, that is).

Of course your assertion about genetics and experience is something different. That's an argument against free will entirely, which gets into the realm of the purely philosophical. The problem I have with that assertion is that it is unverifiable. So it may well be true, but if I cannot possibly ever know whether or not it actually is, there's no sense trying to make a decision based on it. I have to make a judgement call, and my personal judgement is that free will exists and we both have it.

Sorry, I could really go out into deep space on this philosophical topic. Anyways, there is a particular perspective that has caused me to look at things a little differently over the last year. It concerns the question of "who am I?". I mean, the statement "I am free" is devoid of meaning unless we understand what the "I" means, right?

While we like to think of ourselves as individual material beings, some people argue that we are in fact the dependent confluence of a series of events. While this seems like a spiritual topic, I think it is firmly rooted in science. Take a rainbow as an analogy to a human being. What is that rainbow? Is it an independent thing in and of itself? Does it have an inner rainbow essence? Or, is it rather the confluence of a series of other events? While a rainbow might seem like an independent "thing", isn't it just sunlight and water vapor and angles and refraction? If that is the case, then there really is no such thing as a rainbow in and of itself...it is merely a dependent event. The same would go for anything that you look at deeply. When you really begin to dig into something and look for an independent essence, all you find is a confluence of events that give rise to it. So while we can talk about freedom and individuality and independence on one level, ultimately these things seem to just be convenient concepts that we have created that in fact don't ultimately really exist.

Very well put.

On a purely biological, evolutionary, ecological, or scientific level, "rights" are absolutely laughable.

On a level of realizing that in this crazy island we all live on, that we humans are something unique in a spiritual sense, each with his own universe going on in his brain, then the concept of individuality tends to reveal itself.  However, these feelings of idividualism that we have might just be a biological/evolutionary necessity for more complex beings to survive.  If a wolf just pondered about "what he is," he'd be dead in a few days.  The wolf is concerned about him/her, his/her buddies, and his/her children... seems more like a survival mechanism triggered by chemicals in the brain that may have attached itself to our superior human intellect to come up with something crazy like "rights" and "individual sovereignty."

But the biology, science, and unfortunate "desert island" circumstance of our predicament that make us HAVE to interact with each other pre-date our individual forms and consciousness, and the evolution of us into conscious beings.  So if there's a winner in "are we individuals or are we a hive," I think it might be the hive, with some chemical in our brain trying to convince us otherwise so we are selfish enough to survive.

[Benko]

Moda,

Ya, I gather the term libertarianism covers a wide variety of terrritory.  I'm more of the do whatever you want, just leave me alone type (if LIbert. is the right term for my beleifs). 

Even anarchists, rather than moving to somewhere where the government can't or won't touch them, choose to often stay in suburbia or big cities and continue to complain about everything they choose to surround themselves with.

Reminds me of Atheists who can't stand any  public display of religion and demand to have any public display relating to religion removed, lest they be offended.

If you and I were stranded on a desert island together I suspect we could work things out.  On the other hand, if I were stranded on an island with many e.g. of the people who voted for the guy in office, I would divide everything in half equally and then hide from the inevitable.  Being on a desert island is a harsh dose of reality.

[MediumTex]

If you and I were stranded on a desert island together I suspect we could work things out.  On the other hand, if I were stranded on an island with many e.g. of the people who voted for the guy in office, I would divide everything in half equally and then hide from the inevitable.  Being on a desert island is a harsh dose of reality.

On a desert island there is a lot less stuff sitting around that can be stolen.

That's one large difference from the real world that often makes desert islands bad analogies for these discussions.

When really pinned down, I think that most socialists would say that of course they would behave differently on a desert island because on a desert island there wouldn't be the luxury of sitting around trying to decide who to take from and who to give to because there simply wouldn't be that much to take or give in the first place.

[moda0306]

Benko,

I'd agree that plenty of civil libertarians are the same way. There are some things they want government to do far less than others.

However, let's not forget that "public display" usually means the government actively displaying and encouraging one religion. Not some guy wearing a cross necklace in public.

MT,

Less stuff to be stolen, but much higher chance that you'll die if you don't get what you need.  So those coconuts and fish are f'king valuable . So I don't think the analogies are that bad. Especially because they rid us of all the pesky realities of current societal structure... Which helps organize your thoughts philosophically, not so much realistically though.

[MediumTex]

MT,

Less stuff to be stolen, but much higher chance that you'll die if you don't get what you need.  So those coconuts and fish are f'king valuable . So I don't think the analogies are that bad. Especially because they rid us of all the pesky realities of current societal structure... Which helps organize your thoughts philosophically, not so much realistically though.

Lack of stuff to reallocate, though, makes it hard for bureaucracy to take root.

The bottom line is whether we believe that a person who gains his position by threats of violence is in a better position to make good decisions about the optimal allocation of resources than those who created the resources in the first place.

Reasonable people can differ on the answer to this question, but to me that is the question.

[Libertarian666]

Even anarchists, rather than moving to somewhere where the government can't or won't touch them, choose to often stay in suburbia or big cities and continue to complain about everything they choose to surround themselves with.

Name one place like that.

[moda0306]

Libertarian666,

It appears there are a lot of uninhibited islands out there.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ISISA/message/467

Doesn't get much more free than that.

[Benko]

Benko,
However, let's not forget that "public display" usually means the government actively displaying and encouraging one religion. Not some guy wearing a cross necklace in public.

1.  I have yet to see any christmas trees actively prosletize(sp)  or encourage any religion, and yet they seem to be verbotten.

2.  Any words written on a plaque on a wall somewhere seem to be inocuous, and yet 10 commandments displayed in public is likewise verbotten.

I'm not (and was not raised) christian.  X-mas trees are just pretty.

Actively crushing all traces of religion (or trying to) is what I believe the former soviet Union did/tried to, and I believe many people on the left wish to do the same thing for the same reason. 

[Pointedstick]

Even anarchists, rather than moving to somewhere where the government can't or won't touch them, choose to often stay in suburbia or big cities and continue to complain about everything they choose to surround themselves with.

Name one place like that.

http://io9.com/5982119/the-remarkable-s ... r-40-years