8 ms·

It's not just part of the game, it's a top-billing feature. The whole concept of EVE is like a libertarian paradise: anyone can do anything to anybody else at a

It's not just part of the game, it's a top-billing feature. The whole concept of EVE is like a libertarian paradise: anyone can do anything to anybody else at any time, the only consequences are what individuals in the community think they should be (plus AI police in the noob areas). Heck, pretending to play along with someone, and then turning traitor and killing them was in one of the first game trailers.

WalterBright 9y ago
> anyone can do anything to anybody else at any time That isn't libertarianism at all. Libertarianism is you can do whatever you want, provided you do not employ force or fraud against others. There's more to it than that, but that's the core idea. Another way to say the core idea is people have inalienable rights - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
- CodeCube 9y ago
  So what happens when someone employs force or fraud against someone else (in a hypothetical libertarian paradise)?
  - drew55555 9y ago
    They would be charged with a crime.
    - eropple 9y ago
      By the state? How does the state enforce it? Who pays?
      - kelnos 9y ago
        Libertarians don't want no government at all, they just want the minimal amount of government necessary to enforce their platform. The people people pay for it, likely in similar ways to how they pay now.
        todd8 9y ago
        Yes, or in some versions of libertopia you simply pay for what you use. Need a contract? Pay a contract tax stamp that pays for the courts to adjudicate the contract as necessary. Need to drive on a road? Pay a toll to drive on the possibly privately run roads (in any of the various ways that driving tolls can be collected). This approach obviously has some problems to be overcome, but the idea that people are currently made to pay for things they don't need or don't use just because a majority of their neighbors want them to has problems too, like fairness.
        kelnos 9y ago
        Sure, I get that. (For the record, I'm not a libertarian.) Just saying that other versions aren't quite as extreme as the one you suggest.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        Wait, what? Mostly only anarcho-capitalists think along those lines. Libertarianism is a huge spectrum and is the polar opposite of authoritarianism. Taxes are necessary for a functioning, modern, society. Libertarian socialists exist, for example.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    The purpose of government is to protect peoples' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    - vacri 9y ago
      While that's the official libertarian rhetoric, from experience talking to people who identify as libertarian, they're less about life and the pursuit of happiness, and more about liberty and the protection of property rights.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        It's pretty hard to pursue happiness when you have no liberty and no property rights.
        vacri 9y ago
        There are plenty of ways to pursue happiness with little emphasis on liberty and property rights. Check out buddhism, for example, which is big on finding happiness with what you've got. Private property is not a prerequisite for happiness (and certainly not to the degree that libertarians talk about it). For example, Americans are happy that the government prevents strangers from walking across their lands. Northern Europeans are happy that they have Right to Roam, allowing them to cross private lands as long as they don't damage them.
        WalterBright 9y ago
        You're free to become a buddhist if you want. Telling others their prescribed avenues of pursuing happiness is not freedom.
        vacri 9y ago
        You were prescribing me an avenue of pursuing happiness when you said property rights were required. This kind of hypocrisy is rife throughout libertarianism. If anything, by showing you additional ways to be happy, I was increasing the options available to you.
- eduren 9y ago
  Yup, I think the poster conflated libertarians with anarcho-captialism (much closer to Eve and how he described it). Happens all the time and american libertarians aren't exactly blameless for the reputation given their fringe.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    There are nutburgers of every political persuasion. If you're interested in more sensible libertarians, check out the writings of Harold Brown or Milton Friedman.
- staticautomatic 9y ago
  As a philosophy, Libertarianism concerns itself only with the extent of The State's intervention into human affairs. The question of whether or not The State should prevent you from employing force or fraud against another person is itself subject to debate and therefore cannot be what Libertarianism is about or necessarily be a "core idea." The core idea of Libertarianism is that everyone should just be left alone.
  - kcorbitt 9y ago
    > The question of whether or not The State should prevent you from employing force or fraud against another person is itself subject to debate I mean, if you deny the government's role in enforcing contracts and property rights, then you're not really talking about libertarianism anymore, you've just got good old-fashioned anarchy.
    - staticautomatic 9y ago
      That's true, but that's not what I meant. The philosophical maxim of minimal state intervention does not speak to the ways or circumstances in which the state is permitted to intervene. Accordingly, the subjective nature of one's preferred intervention level cannot itself be a definition of Libertarianism, only a flavor.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        Having a police force, civil and criminal court system, and justice dept. works for libertarianism.
        staticautomatic 9y ago
        It's entirely possible to be a libertarian who doesn't believe in civil courts. Arguably, it's possible to not believe in having a police force or justice department, either. Any amount of government is sufficient for libertarianism to exist. What the government is allowed to do and under what circumstances and in what ways depends wholly upon which libertarian you ask.
- wfo 9y ago
  I think you're describing small-l libertarianism which is a very vague and general theory with many, many offshoots that are so opposed to each other they are unrecognizable as coming from the same ideology (libertarian socialists, the US Libertarian party). Small-l libertarianism is such a weak and universally likeable platitude it practically means nothing at all. It's like being "pro-freedom" or "anti-fascism". I think GP meant Libertarianism (like the US Libertarian party, more of an AnCap style ideology) which is pretty much only focused on markets and property rights (i.e. protecting the rich) and its calling cards are ignoring any kind of positive rights theory (the proper saying was life, liberty, property -- all negative. Pursuit of happiness, a positive aspirational right, was added when people realized it actually had to work in real life), lack of an account of historical economics and ignoring any kind of coercion or force except explicit physical force (the least common and most ineffective type of coercion found in modern society). It fundamentally opposes any kind of right to "pursuit of happiness" (or happiness at all) for anyone not wealthy and its ideal world is exactly the structure of Eve -- markets govern all, there are no limits on the power of the few rich who own the universe while the poor beg for scraps and generally die. Except Eve is far gentler -- there are no police to assault you if you trespass in the territory of one of the ultrawealthy and take their property, they have to protect it themselves, and death is not permanent.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Libertarian economics is free market economics, and a fundamental principle of that is property rights. Free market economies are the only economies that have lifted the poor en masse out of poverty, and such economies have large middle classes that very, very much depend on property rights.
    - nosuchthing 9y ago
      Unregulated markets inevitably lead to corruption, oligarchy, and health hazards to humans. It's more profitable to operate when there's no expense or regulation associated with negligence and malice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Federal_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Federal_response The Jungle is a 1906 novel written by the American journalist and novelist Upton Sinclair (1878–1968). Sinclair wrote the novel to portray the harsh conditions and exploited lives of immigrants in the United States in Chicago and similar industrialized cities. Perhaps his main goal in exposing the meat industry and working conditions was to advance Socialism in the United States. However, most readers were more concerned with his exposure of health violations and unsanitary practices in the American meatpacking industry during the early 20th century, greatly contributing to a public outcry which led to reforms including the Meat Inspection Act. The book depicts working class poverty, the lack of social supports, harsh and unpleasant living and working conditions, and a hopelessness among many workers. These elements are contrasted with the deeply rooted corruption of people in power. A review by the writer Jack London called it "the Uncle Tom's Cabin of wage slavery."
colordrops 9y ago
I think you mean anarchism.
gozur88 9y ago
The analogy I always used when I was playing is that of a big prison yard. The strong take from the weak. The weak band together for protection. And you don't want to get caught out by yourself.

WalterBright 9y ago

> anyone can do anything to anybody else at any time That isn't libertarianism at all. Libertarianism is you can do whatever you want, provided you do not employ force or fraud against others. There's more to it than that, but that's the core idea. Another way to say the core idea is people have inalienable rights - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

CodeCube 9y ago
So what happens when someone employs force or fraud against someone else (in a hypothetical libertarian paradise)?
- drew55555 9y ago
  They would be charged with a crime.
  - eropple 9y ago
    By the state? How does the state enforce it? Who pays?
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Libertarians don't want no government at all, they just want the minimal amount of government necessary to enforce their platform. The people people pay for it, likely in similar ways to how they pay now.
      - todd8 9y ago
        Yes, or in some versions of libertopia you simply pay for what you use. Need a contract? Pay a contract tax stamp that pays for the courts to adjudicate the contract as necessary. Need to drive on a road? Pay a toll to drive on the possibly privately run roads (in any of the various ways that driving tolls can be collected). This approach obviously has some problems to be overcome, but the idea that people are currently made to pay for things they don't need or don't use just because a majority of their neighbors want them to has problems too, like fairness.
        kelnos 9y ago
        Sure, I get that. (For the record, I'm not a libertarian.) Just saying that other versions aren't quite as extreme as the one you suggest.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Wait, what? Mostly only anarcho-capitalists think along those lines. Libertarianism is a huge spectrum and is the polar opposite of authoritarianism. Taxes are necessary for a functioning, modern, society. Libertarian socialists exist, for example.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  The purpose of government is to protect peoples' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  - vacri 9y ago
    While that's the official libertarian rhetoric, from experience talking to people who identify as libertarian, they're less about life and the pursuit of happiness, and more about liberty and the protection of property rights.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      It's pretty hard to pursue happiness when you have no liberty and no property rights.
      - vacri 9y ago
        There are plenty of ways to pursue happiness with little emphasis on liberty and property rights. Check out buddhism, for example, which is big on finding happiness with what you've got. Private property is not a prerequisite for happiness (and certainly not to the degree that libertarians talk about it). For example, Americans are happy that the government prevents strangers from walking across their lands. Northern Europeans are happy that they have Right to Roam, allowing them to cross private lands as long as they don't damage them.
        WalterBright 9y ago
        You're free to become a buddhist if you want. Telling others their prescribed avenues of pursuing happiness is not freedom.
        vacri 9y ago
        You were prescribing me an avenue of pursuing happiness when you said property rights were required. This kind of hypocrisy is rife throughout libertarianism. If anything, by showing you additional ways to be happy, I was increasing the options available to you.
eduren 9y ago
Yup, I think the poster conflated libertarians with anarcho-captialism (much closer to Eve and how he described it). Happens all the time and american libertarians aren't exactly blameless for the reputation given their fringe.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  There are nutburgers of every political persuasion. If you're interested in more sensible libertarians, check out the writings of Harold Brown or Milton Friedman.
staticautomatic 9y ago
As a philosophy, Libertarianism concerns itself only with the extent of The State's intervention into human affairs. The question of whether or not The State should prevent you from employing force or fraud against another person is itself subject to debate and therefore cannot be what Libertarianism is about or necessarily be a "core idea." The core idea of Libertarianism is that everyone should just be left alone.
- kcorbitt 9y ago
  > The question of whether or not The State should prevent you from employing force or fraud against another person is itself subject to debate I mean, if you deny the government's role in enforcing contracts and property rights, then you're not really talking about libertarianism anymore, you've just got good old-fashioned anarchy.
  - staticautomatic 9y ago
    That's true, but that's not what I meant. The philosophical maxim of minimal state intervention does not speak to the ways or circumstances in which the state is permitted to intervene. Accordingly, the subjective nature of one's preferred intervention level cannot itself be a definition of Libertarianism, only a flavor.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      Having a police force, civil and criminal court system, and justice dept. works for libertarianism.
      - staticautomatic 9y ago
        It's entirely possible to be a libertarian who doesn't believe in civil courts. Arguably, it's possible to not believe in having a police force or justice department, either. Any amount of government is sufficient for libertarianism to exist. What the government is allowed to do and under what circumstances and in what ways depends wholly upon which libertarian you ask.
wfo 9y ago
I think you're describing small-l libertarianism which is a very vague and general theory with many, many offshoots that are so opposed to each other they are unrecognizable as coming from the same ideology (libertarian socialists, the US Libertarian party). Small-l libertarianism is such a weak and universally likeable platitude it practically means nothing at all. It's like being "pro-freedom" or "anti-fascism". I think GP meant Libertarianism (like the US Libertarian party, more of an AnCap style ideology) which is pretty much only focused on markets and property rights (i.e. protecting the rich) and its calling cards are ignoring any kind of positive rights theory (the proper saying was life, liberty, property -- all negative. Pursuit of happiness, a positive aspirational right, was added when people realized it actually had to work in real life), lack of an account of historical economics and ignoring any kind of coercion or force except explicit physical force (the least common and most ineffective type of coercion found in modern society). It fundamentally opposes any kind of right to "pursuit of happiness" (or happiness at all) for anyone not wealthy and its ideal world is exactly the structure of Eve -- markets govern all, there are no limits on the power of the few rich who own the universe while the poor beg for scraps and generally die. Except Eve is far gentler -- there are no police to assault you if you trespass in the territory of one of the ultrawealthy and take their property, they have to protect it themselves, and death is not permanent.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Libertarian economics is free market economics, and a fundamental principle of that is property rights. Free market economies are the only economies that have lifted the poor en masse out of poverty, and such economies have large middle classes that very, very much depend on property rights.
  - nosuchthing 9y ago
    Unregulated markets inevitably lead to corruption, oligarchy, and health hazards to humans. It's more profitable to operate when there's no expense or regulation associated with negligence and malice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Federal_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Federal_response The Jungle is a 1906 novel written by the American journalist and novelist Upton Sinclair (1878–1968). Sinclair wrote the novel to portray the harsh conditions and exploited lives of immigrants in the United States in Chicago and similar industrialized cities. Perhaps his main goal in exposing the meat industry and working conditions was to advance Socialism in the United States. However, most readers were more concerned with his exposure of health violations and unsanitary practices in the American meatpacking industry during the early 20th century, greatly contributing to a public outcry which led to reforms including the Meat Inspection Act. The book depicts working class poverty, the lack of social supports, harsh and unpleasant living and working conditions, and a hopelessness among many workers. These elements are contrasted with the deeply rooted corruption of people in power. A review by the writer Jack London called it "the Uncle Tom's Cabin of wage slavery."

colordrops 9y ago

I think you mean anarchism.

gozur88 9y ago

The analogy I always used when I was playing is that of a big prison yard. The strong take from the weak. The weak band together for protection. And you don't want to get caught out by yourself.