3 ms·

I have read it, and I agree: the fatal critique is the failure to solve collective-action problems. My point here is just the contingency of the starting point

I have read it, and I agree: the fatal critique is the failure to solve collective-action problems. My point here is just the contingency of the starting point: many do not regard "their word" as obligating. It's a rather magical sort of perspective: that "an oath", "binds", etc. The reason we find promises of this kind even intuitively plausible is social: we immediately intuite that there is reputational damage associated with breaking a vow. Libertarianism thus trades on social instincts in its set up, strangely prioritising just a few of them (aggression, vows, etc.). This is disguised by a language of "freedom and reason", but really it's just a very old-fashioned communtarianism -- that as with most -- works in a near pre-social small-tribe environment, but fails to generalize. When you cannot track people's reputation because you live in a civilization of millions/billions, "contracts" alone aren't a plausible to conduct business. The "social contract" is not something "to be signed", but a recognition of the folly of "signing" (oath giving) in a society where no one hears your oaths.

_0ffh 6y ago
As problematic as any voluntaryist-ish programme may be, I am even more dissatisfied with all of the alternatives. To the people who keep calling for a stronger state to protect them from the evils of capitalism I say: You are being duped! Your chosen path to salvation is in truth the instrument by which you are enslaved! I am much more optimistic that practical solutions may be found to deal with the problems of non-statist societal solutions than with any statist ones. I'm convinced that as long as we have not achieved a state of post-scarcity - which may be never - any attempt to abolish property rights is doomed to bloody failure. Lastly, any societal order that demands even the slightest obligation of active cooperation from any individual - be it at the behest of another individual, an oligarchy, or even a majority - must in time devolve into tyranny. The only path to a solution that I can currently see would have to work along Georgist lines. When money can be raised from common inalienable property, that would enable redistribution without theft. The capitalist tragedy of negative externalities could be solved with a scheme of compensation for damages to a common property. (&c.p.p.) Such a kind of setup might be able to avoid all of the worst pitfalls, I believe.
- _0ffh 6y ago
  Uh, sorry for self-reply, I just want to clarify a potential miscommunication. When I say "along Georgist lines", that's really quite loosely. The proposition here is not a land tax, but common possession of all land, which is to be rented out to the highest bidder. The resulting income would then be distributed in equal shares to the owners (all members of the community).

_0ffh 6y ago

As problematic as any voluntaryist-ish programme may be, I am even more dissatisfied with all of the alternatives. To the people who keep calling for a stronger state to protect them from the evils of capitalism I say: You are being duped! Your chosen path to salvation is in truth the instrument by which you are enslaved! I am much more optimistic that practical solutions may be found to deal with the problems of non-statist societal solutions than with any statist ones. I'm convinced that as long as we have not achieved a state of post-scarcity - which may be never - any attempt to abolish property rights is doomed to bloody failure. Lastly, any societal order that demands even the slightest obligation of active cooperation from any individual - be it at the behest of another individual, an oligarchy, or even a majority - must in time devolve into tyranny. The only path to a solution that I can currently see would have to work along Georgist lines. When money can be raised from common inalienable property, that would enable redistribution without theft. The capitalist tragedy of negative externalities could be solved with a scheme of compensation for damages to a common property. (&c.p.p.) Such a kind of setup might be able to avoid all of the worst pitfalls, I believe.

_0ffh 6y ago
Uh, sorry for self-reply, I just want to clarify a potential miscommunication. When I say "along Georgist lines", that's really quite loosely. The proposition here is not a land tax, but common possession of all land, which is to be rented out to the highest bidder. The resulting income would then be distributed in equal shares to the owners (all members of the community).