Re: Some thoughts on Politics

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 2000 - 02:17:27 MDT


"Corwyn J. Alambar" wrote:
>

Corey,
Thanks for the interesting discussion. I am not a political expert or
expert on libertarianism especially. I am sure there are others here
much more qualified on those grounds. But I will give my opinion in
response to your own.

> As a first point, many of the libertarian principles that I have seen seem to
> be a slightly repackaged form of some of the more practical theories of
> anarchism. In this case, it almsot seems libertarianism is an example of both
> predictive anarchism and possibly a series of templates for the construction
> of social temporary autonomous zones (and here is where I fail in attribution;
> this idea is NOT mine). But as such, I see the problems that associate with
> anarchism raising their heads: The difficulty of organizing projects that
> require more than one or two indiviuals and/or more than the standard
> lifetime of the project organizer, the issues raised under the heading "The
> Tragedy ofthe Commons" (including and especially environmental effects),
> and the strong potential for pockets of tyranny and other social systems to
> rise and slowly absorb and perhaps subjugate those neighboring., either
> cognitively or grographically.
>

To me libertarianism is not necessarily rooted in anarchism at all. It
is primarily routed in strong concepts of individual rights. That is
certainly NOT the same as anarchy although many might argue that anarchy
is a natural result or at least an extrapolation that needs to be
considered. But libertarianism is first and foremost the notion that
the individual is sacrosanct and that the state (if any) exists to serve
the needs of the individuals and provide a bit of infrastructure (if
any) that cannot better be provided by private means. Different
Libertarian theories exist concerning what (if any) genuine roles there
are for a State. It would incorrect to claim libertarianism as such is
a form of anarchism.
 
> As a second point, there seesm to be a strong technological requirement - one
> of which we cannot be so sure is feasable to attain with our current knowledge
> of chemistry, physics, and biology. While the application of this sort of
> philosophy woul dbe applicable with the requisite technology (and admittedly
> is a very good thought experiment and planning project), I am concerned about
> its direct applicability (i.e. without MNT, is the possibility of the MNT-
> enabled being worth discussing as anything but one of a number of possible
> futures?) With our current technology, some of the goals that would doubtless
> be amenable to this mindset (including and especially extraplanetary
> habitation) seem to be difficult if not impossible to achieve without either
> outstanding personal wealth and power (enabling one person the role of
> benevolent tyrant), or it would require an association of people within some
> sort of framework that could (and arguably should, to a degree) be considered
> coercive/limiting of personal freedom.

I would point out that libertarianism is close to classic liberalism and
by modern standards the founders of the country largely founded it on
libertarian principles. They worked, generally, pretty well excepting
growing ugliness of increased government without the bounds built-in
being sufficient to stop it and other ugliness of the times like slavery
and lack of female suffrage. It obviously does not take ultra-high tech
to run a country on basically libertarian principles. I have no idea
why you would think things like MNT are necessary for libertarianism to
work.

>
> As a third point, on a purely systemic approach, it seems that somehow the
> key features of a libertarian system in practice rely upon some sort of
> external power structure beyond the libertarian sphere. AS an example, I
> go back to the environmental protection issue I raised in an earlier thread,
> where NGOs (particularly the Sierra Club) were suing to prevent certain
> environmental damages from happening. But to be able to sue, you require a
> court system. A court system must have a way of enforcing its rulings (one
> can say a great deal about "binding arbitration" - but if one party doesn't
> like the arbitrator's ruling, that's breach of contract - and back into the
> courts.). That enforcement is by nature corercive, and therefore counter
> to what I understand as alibertarian philosophy.
>

Liberatarians are quite diverse, as I mentioned, about what legitimate
functions they believe something like a State might have. Courts, law
making and enforcement and military were Ayn Rand's take (please no
flames about why she really is not a libertarian). There are arguments
that these and/or other things cannot be efficiently and peaceably
handled by private parties.

But Libertarianism only requires respect for individual rights, for
liberty. It does not in an of itself require no State. Some type of
State is not incompatible with Libertarianism according to many
theorists.
 
> As a fourth point, there are assumptions made about human nature, for lack of
> a better phrase, that I cannot simply accept. I don't beleive anyone can say
> the members of this list are a statisicaly (sp?) random or representative
> sample of society at large. In fact, I would trust (to a greater extent) a
> libertarian type system if the only people within it were highly educated,
> thoughtful, and forward looking like most everyone on this list is. But that
> is unfortunately not representative of society at large in nearly any nation,
> and it is that fact that troubles me most about a "non-coercive" system. It
> is a Pyhrric victory at best to know that the group to which I subscribe for
> law and justice will track down the group o ffundamentalists that lynched me
> (for whatever reason - I could give 10 or 20 that would put me high on the
> list of most religious organizations) - that doens't make me any less dead.
> ANd one can speak a great deal about the personal incentive to protect
> onesself as well - but 15 people with equivalent armament to myself will,
> statistically, overcome my own defense, if they care enough about killing me
> to outweigh their numbers. They might even get lucky and not take significant
> casualties. (see the above section on technology for why this is a "primitive"
> example.)
>

Libertarianism does not require being totally "non-coercive". That is a
great misunderstanding. Your freedom does not extent to initiated force
against me and thereby denying my freedom. But stopping a madman or a
murder or someone engaging in the initation of force is not at all
incompatible. It is actually required. The initiation of force is from
the perp. You are stopping the threat to human rights from continuing.

Do you feel better knowing that the State police will eventually track
down your killers? How about if you have the freedom to carry arms and
use them if your life is threatened?
 
> The reason I do not have a philosophy of my own is that in my searche I have
> not found anything that balances mechanisms of restriction and enablement. I
> am not a believer in absolute freedom - as it stands now. I am seeking a
> practical political philosophy, not somethign that works well in theory, but
> doesn't seem likely from where I stand to survive first contact with the
> enemy. Its just disheartening to see the most promisig method of achieving
> the end results with which I sympathize wrapped up in a philosophy that I
> cannot accept in its entirety as presented.
>

Liberatarians do not believe in absolute freedom either. Absolutes are
for mystical tracts. We live in the real world. Freedom does not
include the right to deny me my freedom. It is not unlimited.

Perhaps you should check more deeply into what Libertarianism does and
does not say before being sorry many extropian folks embrace some or all
(if that is even possible with something so diverse beyond the basics)
of it.
 

- samantha



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:13 MDT