From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 10:48:27 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > I respect that you are active on the libertarian front
> > Mike and know from the list your views on certain
> > areas such as right to bear arms, gm labelling, the
> > free state project etc.
> >
> > Can you briefly and positively describe what
> > libertarianism *is* about in your view. How do you
> > see libertarianism in relation to globalism and the
> > global economy and law? The notion of a free state
> > for instance can be looked at from two different
> > standpoints. One could be that the personal liberties
> > that one would like to be able to take for granted
> > as a citizen as ones birthright are not being respected
> > and that as a consequence the best practical way
> > to get them respected is to come together with
> > likeminded others and form a state. But is the aim
> > of that state to keep the rest of the world out or is
> > the aim of that state to create a building space
> > in which to live free and demonstrate a principle
> > so that that principles held by that state can be
> > extended further?
>
> The aim of the state is to create a protected space
> in which high trust institutions can develop and
> where individuals can learn to live high trust lifestyles
> and live with high trust attitudes toward their fellow
> man.
I definately *like* and see considerable merit in the
idea of forming such a state Mike. In fact back around
november 2002 I started a thread "The Principles of
Founding a Virtual Country" (which unfortunately seems
to be too too old to link to in the bbs archive).
Although I think I have relatively few illusions about
how difficult it would be to establish such as state in
practice I do not believe that it would be impossible.
I think I get what you mean by "high trust" institutions
and lifestyles, but it also occurs to me that "trust" can
sometimes be something of a naive thing, where too
great a reliance may be placed on other people, institutions
etc for one's own good. I'm thinking of the old maxim
about 'the price of freedom being external vigilance'.
What do you mean by "high trust"? Is this notion of
high trust yet incorporated into any 'manifesto' or draft
free state constitution?
> Only within such a plenum can a libertarian
> society develop and remain stable. Free trade is a
> fine goal, as is free immigration, but such policies
> should only be permitted between similarly high trust
> societies.
Personally I would agree that there is a lot of merit
in exploring both the philosophical and practical
aspects in the development of such a state. I am glad
that there is a group that is giving this idea a run.
With respect to free trade and free immigration I
see your point. One of the consequences of living
in a contingent universe and each having to budget
our time and our money (formally or by default) is
that when we come to consider the future we would
like to build in its multidimensionality and the present
in which we live with its myriad shortcomings we
come to realise that there is no choice, if we are to
be practical and make progress at all, but to
recognize, prioritise and form some cohensive plan
for sequencing the order in which we will try and
change things. In this sense I can see how, for a
time, a free state, to establish itself would need to
delay or consider carefully free trade and free
immigration.
Related also to the trust aspect though, and I am
sure that this would be an issue that you would
have considered, historically it seems that distrust
between certain groups of people has manifest itself
into intense competition for resources and at the
extreme into the classical arms race. How do you
see a proposed free state defending itself against
outside aggression and do you think that that it
can still innovate in with the same degree of
urgency if it does not engage in free trade for
instance with other states?
>
> Look, for example, at the European Union (no
> example of a libertarian society, but far better than
> most of the world). Immigration between member
> states is pretty wide open now, because all such
> member states have attained some degree of high
> trust in their societies and can therefore freely trade
> and immigrate between each other. The primary
> immigration problems in the EU are from immigrants
> from non-member states, particularly non-member
> states which sustain low trust societies.
>
> >
> > I can envisage a free state as being potentially either
> > defensive or offensive from a libertarian perspective
> > depending on how wide a group of people one aims
> > to extend liberties too. Would a free state be like the
> > last enclave of the American dream or would you
> > see it as a prototype to be copied and extended
> > globally?
>
> Copy it and extend it globally, but do not leave your
> original, or your copies, wide open to dilution and
> dissolution by trade and immigration from low trust
> societies...
Ok.
>
> THis is not to say that trade and immigration should
> be completely prevented. Quite the contrary, but
> products produced in non-free environments should
> be tariffed, and the tariff money used toward efforts
> to increase freedom and trust in those environments,
> if not liberating them entirely, as well as defending
> free and high trust societies against the depredations
> of non-free and low trust societies.
I see, but how would the level of tariffs be determined?
This sort of leads into the idea of what sort of government
the state would have.
One of the substantial difficulties I see in forming such
a state is that modern states are remarkable complex
and that whilst one might be able to find relatively large
numbers of libertarians that are ideologically predisposed
towards forming and living in such a state, many of these
folk are likely to themselves have grown to maturity in
economies and societies that encourage specialisation in
working roles and also knowledge base. The sorts of
true general knowledge holding state builders that I
imagine would I think be fairly thin on the ground and
might face considerable difficulty pursuading some of
the younger more idealistic would be pioneers that
the prototype for the state even in design is likely to
be more complex that they may suspect on first
impressions.
> Immigrants from such societies should be welcomed
> as refugees and defectors, but should be required to
> go through far more rigorous civics, poli-sci, and
> history training, as well as literacy proficiency
> before becoming citizens.
Indeed if your state was well conceived and founded,
(I would see this as involving serious consideration of
education, law and order, the relationship of the state
with other states, government, economics etc) it could
in fact be very successful in competing in a number
of areas with other states even trading only with that
subset of other states with whom it was satisfied were
high trust. Such a state could indeed become a highly
desirable place in which to live. But the logistics of
rolling such a state into existence given it would need
a population of a certain size and a populace that
is on the whole well educated and yet willing to do
work in the short term perhaps like agriculture that
is necessary for the state to become sustainable in
the first place seem to be significant ones.
> Libertarianism will only be secure when the entire
> world is free.
I like the way you are thinking Mike, but the challenge
of beginning and beginning intelligently and with a strong
chance of success would seem to throw up the need to
categorise and prioritise. This would be because in the
short term certain types of freedom in the fledgling free
state would actually be less than the sort of freedom
on the same dimension that at least some of the states
citizens may have enjoyed prior to joining it. We often
hear of freedoms describes as a list of 'freedom toos'
but often just as important are the 'freedom froms' -
religion is the obvious example that comes to mind.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 10:55:27 MDT