bionic mosquito April 23, 2016 at 6:59 AM
Continued decentralization is the desire. Increasing choice of types of communities is the objective.
Hoping that humans will become something other than what they have been in all of recorded history is a pipe-dream. This you have in common with communist theory - the belief in the possibility of creating a new man.
Have it your way: it is not libertinism. It is Marx's theory put into practice. Hell on earth.
You are then "out of a free market." And I have much more evidence in history on my side than do you.
Anonymous April 24, 2016 at 4:25 AM
@bm you are only telling me that free market and ancap are impossible. May be the case. I hope you are wrong.
My thoughts on this, as follows:
I am wondering why it is expected that application of libertarian theory (in its pure form) is held to a standard that no other political theory (in its pure form) has ever achieved or can ever achieve.
Further: no religion on earth – blessed by the gods or blessed by the God – has ever achieved such perfection in application, yet libertarian theory in application is held to this standard. If such a religion has not achieved such perfection in application, why is it expected of libertarian theory?
The world is made up of humans – imperfect creatures with many flaws. Yet, somehow, a political theory in application is supposed to make them each flawless gods?
I understand why enemies of libertarian theory attempt to hold the theory (and possible application thereof) to such a standard – to discredit a political theory that offers maximum liberty is a desirable objective for proponents of every other political theory.
I do not understand why the friends of libertarian theory hold it to such a standard in application. They only serve to discredit the theory.
I have been clear before, but feel I must state again: libertarian theory and the non-aggression principle is beautiful; do not initiate aggression. This is the theory, and it stands on its own. It should always be defended as the inviolable aspect of the theory. Anything else one suggests to be part of libertarian theory must stand to the test of the NAP and private property.
Debate the theory – it must be so, to refine it. As Walter Block often says (something like): to get one-millionth of a degree close to the truth. This is a necessary and valuable activity.
However, the application of the theory is not so easy in this world – and never will be no matter the fruits of the theoretical debates. The term “aggression” does not define itself; the term “property” does not define itself; the term “human” does not define itself – certainly not when it comes to the application of the theory to children and others with less-than-reasonable mental capacities.
We can debate these definitions all we want, but who is to say others will accept the results? A society must define all these and more; who is to say that every society everywhere in the world will define these the same way?
No amount of debate between and amongst libertarian theorists is going to change what a tribal community in some far-flung corner of the world considers “property.” Even if you get them to buy into libertarian theory, their view of what makes for “property” will likely always be different than yours.
Decentralization of political power, always and everywhere, is my view of the application of this theory – if application of the theory is ever to take root in some corners of the globe. Voluntary agreements, always.
What does “voluntary” mean? In theory, I get it. In application? It can only mean choice – and the more choices the more voluntary. Even in the freest market, I do not get exactly the car I want, or the house, or the steak. I do have enough choices where I am able to find one that is closest to my ideal. It isn’t perfect. Against a theoretical definition of “voluntary,” it fails to stand. But in this world, it is more than sufficient for liberty.
When I am able to choose from numerous possibilities in more and more aspects of my life, I increase my liberty. The more numerous the choices, the better; the more numerous the more liberty and the closer I am to reaching voluntary perfection.
Inherently, property is exclusionary. Conclusions can be drawn from this; these conclusions do not make all libertarians happy. Some conclusions so upset some libertarians so much that they almost cannot be distinguished from communists.
But they are valid conclusions as long as one accepts that property is exclusionary. Of course, you are free to accept that property is not exclusionary – this also seems more like communism than anything else. As I said to anonymous, this is Marx’s theory put into practice – hell on earth.
As long as all agreements are voluntary, political groupings for most issues of personal importance will remain relatively small and local. Three-hundred-million bound by the same politics? No chance, not voluntarily. Even two-million? Not likely. Think Switzerland – and the smaller cantons at that. Political groupings will likely be comprised of this size – people you know, people who have demonstrated that they are trustworthy.
I return to anonymous:
…you are only telling me that free market and ancap are impossible.
Perfection by humans in any endeavor is impossible.
Libertarians should stop serving those who wish to destroy libertarian theory by holding the application of libertarian theory to a standard never achieved by any political theory or religion anywhere or anytime in the history of the world.
Which brings me back to decentralization. Decentralization always and everywhere. This is where libertarian theory leads in application in this world, a world made up of flawed humans.