4 ms·

It's not hard to make the case that today's governments are tired and slipping and in need of reform. But there's no such thing as the libertarian fantasy of "l

by _bxg1 7y ago

It's not hard to make the case that today's governments are tired and slipping and in need of reform. But there's no such thing as the libertarian fantasy of "lack" of governance. Human nature dictates that if there's a power vacuum, it will be filled. If it isn't filled carefully with a system designed to serve the people, it'll be filled by whoever can take it for themselves. And whether that's a feudal lord or Mark Zuckerberg, it will be worse than the alternative. It's nothing short of a miracle that for the past 150-200 years, we've managed to fill much of the world's power space with a system that roughly serves the people (with lots of flaws, but nevertheless). Let's hope it isn't just an anomaly.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
> But there's no such thing as the libertarian fantasy of "lack" of governance. Human nature dictates that if there's a power vacuum, it will be filled. If it isn't filled carefully with a system designed to serve the people, it'll be filled by whoever can take it for themselves. Then let that power vacuum be filled on the state and local level. West Virginia and California should be free to run their societies into the ground (or not) in their own ways without the other telling them how to do it or being on the hook for the cost.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Except people are not perfectly mobile and can't simply relocate across a continent. Should California be free to say, deny all brown eyed people access to public schooling? Or to run its economy into the ground and dissolve as a state? What about selling itself to a foreign power?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    People are free to relocate where they want. They are not free from the consequences, particularly economic ones. As someone who is living in an fairly terrible state because there happens to be some high paying jobs in my industry I am unfortunately very aware of these kinds of trade-offs. Don't straw-man me, I'm not saying we should dissolve the federal government. I'm saying states need to be less under its thumb and with that comes some responsibility for the consequences of mismanagement. Some of those consequences compound (screw up your state enough and all the people who can move will, taking their tax revenue with them) but that risk seems like a pretty low price to pay for more government happening on a level that is easier for the average Joe to influence. If they can somehow reconcile your eye color restrictions with existing state law, the US constitution, etc then sure, why not.

by _bxg1 7y ago

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

> But there's no such thing as the libertarian fantasy of "lack" of governance. Human nature dictates that if there's a power vacuum, it will be filled. If it isn't filled carefully with a system designed to serve the people, it'll be filled by whoever can take it for themselves. Then let that power vacuum be filled on the state and local level. West Virginia and California should be free to run their societies into the ground (or not) in their own ways without the other telling them how to do it or being on the hook for the cost.

vorpalhex 7y ago
Except people are not perfectly mobile and can't simply relocate across a continent. Should California be free to say, deny all brown eyed people access to public schooling? Or to run its economy into the ground and dissolve as a state? What about selling itself to a foreign power?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  People are free to relocate where they want. They are not free from the consequences, particularly economic ones. As someone who is living in an fairly terrible state because there happens to be some high paying jobs in my industry I am unfortunately very aware of these kinds of trade-offs. Don't straw-man me, I'm not saying we should dissolve the federal government. I'm saying states need to be less under its thumb and with that comes some responsibility for the consequences of mismanagement. Some of those consequences compound (screw up your state enough and all the people who can move will, taking their tax revenue with them) but that risk seems like a pretty low price to pay for more government happening on a level that is easier for the average Joe to influence. If they can somehow reconcile your eye color restrictions with existing state law, the US constitution, etc then sure, why not.