There have been a bunch of anarchist enclaves, also in war or post-conflict zones, some pretty successful at self-government. Examples: Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War, parts of Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, the Paris Commune. But none of these could defend themselves when a bigger and more heavily armed power moved in and wanted their territory, so they were temporary phenomena.
I used to be a Randite and later more of a Libertarian, but as I grew older, I put away childish things.
[I’m a flaming liberal now with at least some sense of fiscal conservatism]
Yeah, I don’t get what the allure is, it looks like some kind of retirement community, not an “independent nation.”
There are so many obvious problems with this setup, and the only ‘benefit’ is they get to call themselves a Libertarian mini-state. As if that proves something.
Did they come up with a name yet? Maybe they could call it “The Independent State of Alcatraz.”
My fundamental objection to Libertarianism (okay, one of many) is what you allude to - the reality that the most powerful entity becomes the government, in deed, if not in name. That’s not being evil, that’s just how humans work.
So if someone is going to be able to give me orders at gun-point, I would vastly prefer it to be an organization over which I hold at least nominal control and wishes my approval of its conduct every four years or so.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” —George Orwell, Animal Farm
I thought that was the scene where Eddard beheads that Night’s Watch dude.
Heh. Violence is inherent in the system.
If that account is true, people like Stefan Molyneux really mess young people up. And if that account is false, still the same.
I see that the AnCaps have a boil of a NAP article on Wikipedia that should have been lanced ages ago. (Judging by the talk page, most of the obvious objections were raised years ago, but since there’s no sign anything was done, probably carefully edit-warring by his followers and the like.)
Gah, co-opting historical figures by cherry-picking statements and Original Research that they were all striving towards the Holy NAP, referenced to a KochBroCo splinter group with ludicrous pretentions of fake heraldry.
One of the stated goals of the Mises Institute is to promote “honest history”, which really says it all.
In this context, if I understand correctly, “non-aggression” means “it is ethical to use force in maintaining or gaining access to a resource to which you believe you are entitled”.
Micro house bloggers / Off grid living enthusiasts / Weirdos that are into sovereign micro states …
To me they’re all the same bunch of anti-social Ayn Rand dickheads. Shut the fuck up and learn to get along with your neighbours and fellow citizens.
Um, the first two are not at all antisocial, but are experimenting with ways to reduce their own personal needs. Often to the benefit of their neighbours and fellow citizens. The motto is often “I will consume less and leave more for others.”
I do not belong to either group, but I find their members friendly and quite socialist in their worldviews. Well, those I have met, that is.
The early history of Maryland is instructive here. The colony was founded to be a refuge for English Catholics who were fleeing repression. But after years of repression, the only people who could afford to maintain ties to the Catholic Church were well off, rich even. Since they needed people to sow their fields, clean their houses and do their laundry, they brought in Protestant help and guaranteed religious freedom for all Christians.
Within 60 years, there was a civil war, the Protestants took over, moved the state capital and cut back on that silly religious freedom idea.
Edited to add… A more thorough account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Toleration_Act
Only one thing can save this project:
Atlas haussa les épaules.
Yeah the first two seem to be attempting with varying degrees of success to use their privilege to better living options and resources for others within the context of an existing government. They can be blithe and clueless, but they can also be intensely dedicated to making currently expensive barriers less high-cost, reforming laws to allow more people greater choice, etc. They may not always be right and may often run into some of the more sensible and necessary reason for things like building codes, as well as totally misunderstanding how many people can make that kind of life work, but the intent is pretty different as there seems to be no indication that they simply see THEMSELVES and their way of thinking so superior that they should isolate themselves to show what a great utopia their fantasy world would be. Building for yourself or even contracting for a small house to be built in an unconventional way inherently isolates you from others as does any form of not depending on largely public services. The need for public services may also be ignored which is definitely not helpful, but there’s really only one bizarre hybrid of unintentional and/or denial-blinded oligarchy, colonialism, and pure fantasy that results in building an inherently precarious and high maintenance land formation off the coast of another country without bothering to keep relations with that country in a good enough state for it to be advantageous to have you there, and with literally no one to maintain this infrastructure because you honestly think just removing everyone but rich people would lead to anything but a bunch of people who can’t do anything for themselves holding their money and crying about the weight of the world being on their shoulders. They don’t want taxes, they don’t want to pay anyone for their work, they don’t want to do it themselves… normally at this point you’d tell your child that they’ll grow more accustomed to reality as they age but since these are adults …I guess you just wait for a typhoon to see how much help they want from those evil governments that helped get them to this point of ridiculous bloated disconnect before they took their ball to go home to someone else’s coast.
Libertarians hold the distinction of having been pwned by a video game:
“These sad saps. They come to Rapture thinking they’re gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody’s gotta scrub the toilets.”
Nope. Violence is inherent. Period. Systems tend to be devised to deal with the inherent violence, but, since the violence is inherent…well, you do the math.
Violence is a strategy. Cooperation is a strategy. Evolution has put both of them into our mental and physical toolkits. I would argue that we should try to structure societies in ways that encourage the use of cooperation and make violence as a strategy as ineffective as possible.
There are a lot of conflicting systems.
For example some all but do away with the judge. The judge will explain a legal theory, for example why some bit of evidence should be excluded. The jury itself decides if they should hear that evidence (i.e. “the judge is full of crap”, or “we don’t like the law/fundamental principal that excludes…whatever”).
Another example, multiple judicial systems exist, and you get to pick one (if you fail to choose you get a “default justice system”, or maybe a “randomly selected judicial system”). Then there are some complex rules about what happens if you sue someone and they have a different judicial system then you do. I didn’t see how it prevents “BigCo” from choosing a judicial system that is “BigJustice a subsidiary of BigCo”, or at least “Large Company Loving Justice”, or how it prevents having a biased judicial system delivering “not justice”. The closest thing I have seen to a logical explanation is “the jurors actually do all the deciding, so having a biased justice system is Ok because the jury can ignore all of it’s advice”. I’m not sure how well that would work… or in fact, I’m not convinced it could work remotely well.
In most of the sketches of libertarian justice systems I’ve seen the judge doesn’t really have a verdict, a jury does. Most commonly this is treated as a contract (for example when you choose a judicial system you agree to be bound by the ruling of one of it’s juries…), and libertarians are generally fine with using the power of the government to enforce a contract. Or at least to enforce simple unambiguous contracts, complex or ambiguous ones go to court.
So in theory if BigCo say dumps a ton of crap into the water, and someone downstream (you!) complains, takes BigCo to court, and anyone can figure out what court actually handles the resulting mess, a jury is somehow selected (I think this is the most likely place for unfairness to be introduced…BigCo wants the jury to consist of 100% BigCo supporters, you want the jury to have 100% people that drink the water). Lets say the jury eventually decides that BigCo owes you 0.1 grams of gold per day. In theory the “minimal government” is Ok enforcing the jury verdict. Even if they have to escalate to use of violence or dissolving a corporate charter.
However the devil is usually in the details, and nobody has really hammered all these details out, and then tested it for real.