Saturday, November 16, 2019

Libertarianism doesn't fail

In spite of assurances to the contrary, I have never once seen libertarianism/abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism fail when used in the real world.

Yes, people frequently fail to use it, but that's their failure. It rests nowhere else.

Libertarianism is a tool. It's always the right tool for the job when you're talking of human interaction-- among individuals or societies. Yes, there are other tools you can use-- none of them are as good and all of which are harmful to individuals.

You wouldn't blame the tool for the failure when people don't use the proper tool when it's offered. It's not the hammer's fault if someone rejects the hammer you offer them and pick up a rock to use instead. That would be silly.

Sure, people could get by using a rock to drive in nails, but a good hammer is going to work better whether or not they use one. Same goes for libertarianism.

You can use archation-- the state/political government-- to create a semblance of a society. But to make the claim that society needs archation is to ignore the fact that society and political government are mutually exclusive.

A society may exist in parallel with a state, but it exists in spite of it, not because of it. Never mistake some expression of statism for a functioning society because it isn't one.

And this brings up a point: maybe giant groups of humans-- what is taken for "society" by most people today, simply can't work for our species. It might be disturbing to consider, but it might still be reality.

You can't keep a single, solitary bee alive, healthy, and functioning-- not as a bee.
Perhaps you similarly can't have a healthy, functioning hive of humans-- this is the level where The State always arises. Would this fact upset you if it were true?


Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. maybe the answer is ... to avoid hives of humans that get to the size that they want a state.

    the problem then, is finding places where individuals and smaller hives can live as they choose, without the state archators doing violence unto us.

    1. If it becomes a hive, I'm out. No matter how small it might be.

    2. so how does Libertarianism "grow up", to be successful at the small hive level?

      in some situations, there are benefits to hives/clusters; things like electricity, food, water, computers, printing presses.

      what is missing from Libertarian philosophy for the hive situation?

      this needs to be solved, to make the world a more rational place.

    3. I think you can have a voluntary temporary collective of convenience without it becoming a hive. I have joined with others on many occasions to do something none of us could do as individuals. Cooperation is healthy, helpful, and good. Human hives aren't cooperative, though. Once any group I'm in starts becoming a hive-- "do it this way, or else!", etc.-- I quit. That sort of thing has no place in society, and libertarianism doesn't need to accommodate it.

      As I see it libertarianism is perfectly suited for cooperation and groups. Most people are individual libertarian, it's just that they've been tricked into thinking it can't scale up-- but it can and does. I've experienced it. Yes, there may be an upper size limit, but that may be the upper size limit for society anyway.

    4. is there a libertarian approach to the problem of "cartels"??

      gangs of plundering thugs exist in all times... so how do individuals beat cartels? how do libertarian groups organize to be resilient against cartels?

      That is a type of problem for which libertarian hives have not yet demonstrated a sustainable solution.

      genghis kahn wiped out many libertarian societies.
      defense against islamic horrors is not something libertarians have demonstrated.
      viking raiders wiped out many libertarian societies.

      so how does libertarianism "scale up" to address this common type of problem?

    5. Marathon, AmRev, Alamo

      from time to time- the successful libertarian offshoot is... a "republic"

      if/when men accept the burden of supporting it against gangs of thieves

      -OR- -- how else do libertarians defend against cartels ?
      is there a better way?

    6. "is there a libertarian approach to the problem of "cartels"??"
      Join together with other well-armed individuals and shoot the cartel thugs-- including the head of the cartel. More effective than what various governments have been doing. And, I would point out, the reason this isn't done today is that government says it is "illegal" and would kidnap and cage-- or murder-- anyone who tried to do it. Cartels are a government-created problem that government poses as the solution to.

      If you've established a republic (or any other form of state) you've become a cartel rather than defended against one. Your republic can only exist through plunder, aggression, murder, etc... all the things you use as an excuse for having the state.

      The better way is to NOT make this mistake. Will a better way work? At least as well as the government "solution" does. If you govern politically, you've already failed. There's no one else who's a bigger threat to your life, liberty, and property than the government you've established or support. Yes, you have an X% chance of being violated by the group/cartel/warlord you fear, but you have a 100% chance of being violated by the government you've set up. How does this make sense?

    7. "Join together with other well-armed individuals and shoot the cartel thugs"

      does that hive of like minded individuals train as a group, or grow new members?
      or do they materialize out of thin air, fully capable?
      "provide for a common defense" is one basic need not met by current libertarian philosophies. A foundation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs- includes "physical safety". No society survives, without that. So what's missing, and how do we "grow" the philosophy to deal with this reality?

      Libertarianism is excellent at the individual level, but I have not seen philosophical basis for hive cooperation to provide for a common defense.

    8. "If it becomes a hive, I'm out. No matter how small it might be."

      again, it sounds like libertarianism is only for individuals,
      and doesn't "scale-up".

      (wishing we could scale it up, to enable rational societies)

    9. "does that hive of like minded individuals train as a group, or grow new members"
      Yes. Why wouldn't it? People who are interested in that sort of thing will gravitate toward groups that do this. Just like they do today. But they won't be supported by theft.

      As I've pointed out, it does scale up. But it can't include theft, aggression, etc. You seem to want to find a way to include theft and aggression in libertarianism so you can have the kind of hive you want-- a state/republic. You can't reconcile opposites.

      You can have cooperation on large scales. Political governments are not cooperation, no matter what kind you establish-- you've just been tricked into seeing them as cooperation.

    10. i agree: "Political governments are not cooperation"

      so, to be rational, there needs to be an effective way to "scale up" without boatloads of free-riders TAKING benefits without contributing. There-in lies the problem.
      is there a voluntary way to exclude benefits (defense) from free-riders?

      again- i don't want coercion from a state/republic. My concern is that pure voluntarism doesn't address some basic needs (like defense against cartels). This Something is missing from the current framing of voluntarism that prevents it from "scaling up"

    11. regarding free-riders TAKING benefits: can they be forcibly stopped from TAKING?
      if so, isn't that forcing them to comply? or is it stopping them from taking?

      is walking away, just conceding to the cartel takers?
      is not walking away, just conceding to the freeloading takers?


    12. observation of current events; that mostly- the freeloading takers win, and the cartels win. libertarians provide the wealth they feast on.

      what is the philosophy that defeats both freeloaders and cartels from TAKING?
      are BOTH "constant vigilance" and "vigorous defense against takers" the minimum requirements?

      or is "walking off the playing field" the only viable philosophy, to avoid being robbed?

    13. I stopped caring about "free riders" a long time ago. Once I realized it wasn't a real problem, but just am excuse.

      Now, if someone is actually stealing/robbing/"taxing" that's a different story. But I think if you consider "free riders" to be robbing you, you're going to make your own life much harder than it needs to be.

      The philosophy that stops theft is respect for property rights and the defense thereof. I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but this requires constant vigilance and vigorous defense (but you are free to hire someone at your own expense to fulfill these responsibilities on your behalf if you want to). No one promised life would be a dreamy nap. And, there may be times when you decide to walk off the field. That's a perfectly valid choice.

  2. btw- the cartels in mexico are crude amateurs (brutal to be sure),
    compared to the slick u.s. statist cartels (wealth extraction racket at a global scale)