Philosophy Now Forum

What's the maximum size of a Libertarian society?

Definitely small: far closer to the U.K. than the U.S.

It's the drug user who does his own depriving.

excellent point

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:37 am What's the maximum size of a Libertarian society?

Definitely small: far closer to the U.K. than the U.S.

I think you are a few orders of magnitude out.

Even at small-city scale (50000 folk) Libertarianism fails.

As far as I am concerned Libertarianism is (in practice) communism - it only works for communes.

As far as I am concerned Libertarianism is (in practice) communism - it only works for communes.

I think it would depend on the libertarianism

I'm advocating' for a particular strain

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:53 am As far as I am concerned Libertarianism is (in practice) communism - it only works for communes.

I think it would depend on the libertarianism

I'm advocating' for a particular strain

All the strains fail with scale.

All the strains fail with scale.

Why?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:40 am It's the drug user who does his own depriving.

excellent point

But what if someone is caught , imprisoned , and forcefully addicted by a drugs gang who aim to make more addicts /customers?

what if someone is caught , imprisoned , and forcefully addicted by a drugs gang who aim to make more addicts/customers?

he is violated

his life liberty, and property is abused

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:40 am It's the drug user who does his own depriving.

excellent point

it should be noted: he makes his choice and is responsible for it

incapacitation of reason (thru injury or disease) can absolve a person of responsibility; willful, knowing, self-incapacitation can't

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:03 pm Limiting communal responsiblity to nothing but not depriving from others of property doesn't really unpack very elegantly.

If that's all you think is there, in the 3 lines, you've haven't unpacked 'em.

Should I explain them to you? I'd be divin' into principles, though: that might put me in violation of mick's opening instructions.

What say you, mick? Can I unpack the 3 laws for flash?

I see in your other thread you are doing this unpacking job. And there's more to come, so I am excited.

However so far you've unpacked the right to desire stuff, and posess stuff, think stuff and so on. It sort of looks like duties are going to be nothing more than reciprocal instructions to respect those rights of others. A limit in other words, of communal duties, to the non interference in other person's property.

Was all that unpacking talk just about including as "property" some metaphysical objects like mind and substance?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:52 pm ...
Folks would be more self-responsible (cuz other than private charities, there'd be no social safety net).

You mean that there would be a better 'safety net' for you and your ability to capitalize on exploiting the weak better.

More folks would self-employ (cuz there'd be no regs hobblin' self-employment, and who wants to work for somebody else when you can work for yourself?).

Self employment still favors only those best who already have a 'safety net' by default and so would penalize those without. And then this would force those desperate to survive to be more incentivized to appeal to the 'criminal' ventures. [I placed quotes around 'criminal' because without the social service of "Justice", 'crime' would not exist by definition with respect to the people except by whatever PRIVATE powers one has to DICTATE what is 'justice' and their ability to enFORCE it. But, then again, this includes the incentive of the drug dealer example, as already given by someone else here, to 'capitalize' on that ideal as well! ]

Gun ownership would be encouraged (cuz self-reliant men and women aren't inclined to trust others as the only safeguard against violation).

Goodbye 'civilization'! But note that you would then also NEED even more powerful weapons than a simple gun and a castle with walls big enough to stave off the rest of us animals now with a better reason to hunt you down. Humpty Dumpties like you would then be even more paranoid because your need for guns and castles proves that you have a sensitive shell by default.

The population would be smaller than it would be in a similar community today (without a social security net, with only private charities, folks would be a mite more diligent in makin' babies only when they want, and can afford, 'em).

Yes, once those of us turn rabidly feral with no social civilization, we'd require hunting you down. Every 'capitalizing' creature that we'd all be loves eggs though. And as every bird knows, they have to be quite a bit more clever in building their nests to be more difficult to find. Given castles are somewhat hard not to find, you'd at least be easy to locate. So where others just might have the clever memory of how to still use the left over tools of civilization that can penetrate walls, you'd also need a means to prevent those tools from freely getting into the hands of outsiders. Now you need a bigger castle to keep the tools others might use against you or have to seek a means to completely rid the world of tools altogether.

Maybe you could hire others to help you, right? But what will you pay them in compensation for this? Money would no longer be guarateed to have 'trust' by simple promises you privately make and so you need to return to the old fashioned idea of barter.

Justice would be swift (there's only 3 laws and a handful of associated applications).

Yes, indeed. Us wild animals would not be concerned about the compassion of the other animals we eat or we'd starve. I mean, do you trust that a bear would be compassionate enough to think, ...."shit, I can't just eat this guy without first looking up to see whether it's fair or not. It's 'fair' for me. That's all the justice I need.

There'd be no law makers (folks would negotiate and finagle with one another in civil disputes with the court of last resort as the final, not first, solution).

Right. Bears and other wild animals like us don't have to burden ourselves as just mentioned, so we don't need the extra burden to be concerned about the local laws of some other animal's idea of what is or is not 'right' for them. I'm hungry now and if I pause to think about your laws, that just might delay me long enough for you to possibly escape MY first law of conservation: Eat least I be eaten. Save my brain's energy for the muscle strength that is my priority.

Contracts would be simple (again, there's only 3 laws and a handful of practical applications).

Yes, give me what I want for the asking. I'll trade you a place in my tummy for the loss of your freedom to run.

Money would actually be money (what the market values).

Well, those 'bills' might be useful to wipe my ass. But 'money' as token promises for future exchange might be too 'civilized' like the old ways. It's probably a good policy to only keep what I can handle. My stomach contents is sufficiently minimalist. So I'll just eat and live moment to moment unless I find a stone nest whose broken shell pieces assure me its prior occupants abandoned it and claim it as my own castle to settle in. I know.....its no longer an effective fortress given it had been made useless by some successful penetration that destroyed its prior form. But it now blends in better with the surrounding natural rock formations and overgrown vegetation. It can still act as a kind of safe camoflage to at least have a place for a good nap.

There, a start...have at it: ask questions, level criticisms, make me think and write more.

Think? What is their to think? Did I not just tell you what my first law was earlier? What was that again? ...
.., uhmmm... what...was...

...Oh fuck it, I'm too tired to think. I need to find some more eggs.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:49 pm what if someone is caught , imprisoned , and forcefully addicted by a drugs gang who aim to make more addicts/customers?

he's is violated

his life liberty, and property is abused

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:40 am It's the drug user who does his own depriving.

excellent point

it should be noted: he makes his choice and is responsible for it

incapacitation of reason (thru injury or disease) can absolve a person of responsibility; willful, knowing, self-incapacitation can't

Henry, you say "responsibility". To whom should one hold oneself responsible?

Was all that unpacking talk just about including as "property" some metaphysical objects like mind and substance?

I don't rightly know.

*I've never unpacked sumthin' that's, I think, evident and intuitive.

We'll have to see where I land.




*it's akin to dissectin' a living man, puttin' all his organs in different trays, and then interrogatin' the mess about where it was last Tuesday.

Henry, you say "responsibility". To whom should one hold oneself responsible?

To himself. In context: the self-incapacitated is self-responsible. He'll pay the price for his bad choices, one way or another, cuz those are his bad choices.

You mean that there would be a better 'safety net' for you and your ability to capitalize on exploiting the weak better.

How, in the natural rights libertarian minarchy I've described so far, would I have more of a safety net than you?

Self employment still favors only those best who already have a 'safety net' by default and so would penalize those without.

As a self-employer, I tell you plainly: you don't know what you're talkin' about.

I have no safety net: no company benefits, no paid leave, no group insurance, no disability or unemployment benefits, no tax breaks, and a growin' body of local, state, and federal regs are skewed against me. All I have to my side is me, my ability to do the work and drum up clients.

In a minarchy, for me, it would be much the same minus the dodgin' and weavin' I do now to get thru and past those regs.

crime' would not exist by definition

In the minarchy? Of course it would. Broadly: any violation of life, liberty, or property is a criminal act.

PRIVATE powers

In the minarchy I'm describin' in this thread: who would that be?

Goodbye 'civilization'!

Fences make for good neighbors; firearms make for polite ones.

But note that you would then also NEED even more powerful weapons than a simple gun and a castle with walls big enough to stave off the rest of us animals now with a better reason to hunt you down.

I'll stick with my coach gun and three bedroom, two bathroom, house, thank you very much.

You assume I'd be standin' alone. In a natural rights libertarian minarchy, a *commie like yourself would be the minority.




*very tellin' you assume you couldn't cut it in a minarchy, that you'd have to be an animal to survive...you don't give yourself enough credit as a capable human being...sad thing is: you think you'd get a fair shake in a marxist society...you should go here viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34096 and tell us about that society