8 ms·

most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments

most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long. Wait, really? You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety, otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no freedom. You're still acting as if it is obvious and intuitive that if someone wants something, they want the government to provide it. I think it might be illuminating to replace the government with some other entity, like, say, IBM or the local library, e.g. "Everyone knows we need to provide for people in their old age. That's why I think IBM should take some of my money every time I get paid, and give it to old people." This sounds absurd, of course, but it does bring up the question of why one should automatically assume that a monopolistic government is the only entity that can do certain tasks -- that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? I'm not talking about reason, I'm talking about historical precedent. Many theories about how a anarchistic system can maintain stasis but none of them have real life examples. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. And I think you're confusing my definition of government. The government is whatever entity has a legal right to exercise force over some population. If that is the library, then the library is the government. In a real life capitalist republic, government competition turns into the two party system we have now, where each side is nominally for pushing the social contract farther left or right. And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? I agree with this aspect of Objectivism, the government's role is to provide for the security of economic exchange (enforcement of contracts, military security, courts). that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government?
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  I'm talking about historical precedent If you're talking about history, are you talking about how powerful central governments are worth all those millions of brutal murders? So far, corporations have killed far fewer people than governments have, and when corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state. Not an indictment of the moral character of statists, just how things work when you monopolize force. the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. That sounds wildly unlikely. What is special about force that makes it different? And even if force is different, is it worth the cost -- the government that starts out by providing defense and law enforcement relentlessly expands into moralistic regulation, redistributive taxation, and intrusive snooping into citizens' lives. The most successful non-revolutionary conservative movements succeed in slowing this down, temporarily. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government? Likewise. But if we're talking about engineering good outcomes, the thing to look at his how to engineer the state away, not how to engineer around the problems that afflict all states.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to. Give them the legal ability to kill people and they will (your example actually supports this, it's when the corporations collude with the government and have a chance of getting away with murder that they do). you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am pro government. I'm not. Bad government is responsible for more death than every other problem that faces humans. But I'm also a realist, as you say even the most successful of revolutions has only ever slowed government down. If I had my way the politicians would be dragged from their beds and shot tonight, but the world is not built for people like you and I. As long as intelligent people are a minority we have to engineer around the problems of government because whether you or I like it government is here to stay.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      "Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to" That's one of the most provocative things I have heard in a while. I have to make a comment here. Please forgive the intrusion. (I haven't read the entire thread) Corporations are businesses. They provide the best service or product to people at the lowest price. How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation? If you were a CEO, would you gamble the entire corporate stock on it? It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, not reality. Business is based on good faith, trustworthy contracts, and the moral and physical support of all concerned. You can't just start whacking people and expect any of that to stay around. That's not reality. Yes -- you could sell a dangerous product. But that's not killing people. It's a different thing entirely. As for "engineering government" to work for you, I assume that's the main part of your thread. I'd simply ask that you do a LOT of reading on engineering government to work for people. There have been a lot of people doing a lot of engineering, so we have a lot of history to read and learn about.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen if their philosophy were implemented? I'm not talking about reason, I'm talking about historical precedent. Many theories about how a anarchistic system can maintain stasis but none of them have real life examples. Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of these freedom-for-safety exchanges? the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. And I think you're confusing my definition of government. The government is whatever entity has a legal right to exercise force over some population. If that is the library, then the library is the government. In a real life capitalist republic, government competition turns into the two party system we have now, where each side is nominally for pushing the social contract farther left or right. And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the military)? I agree with this aspect of Objectivism, the government's role is to provide for the security of economic exchange (enforcement of contracts, military security, courts). that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government?

byrneseyeview 18y ago
I'm talking about historical precedent If you're talking about history, are you talking about how powerful central governments are worth all those millions of brutal murders? So far, corporations have killed far fewer people than governments have, and when corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state. Not an indictment of the moral character of statists, just how things work when you monopolize force. the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. That sounds wildly unlikely. What is special about force that makes it different? And even if force is different, is it worth the cost -- the government that starts out by providing defense and law enforcement relentlessly expands into moralistic regulation, redistributive taxation, and intrusive snooping into citizens' lives. The most successful non-revolutionary conservative movements succeed in slowing this down, temporarily. The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and effective government? Likewise. But if we're talking about engineering good outcomes, the thing to look at his how to engineer the state away, not how to engineer around the problems that afflict all states.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to. Give them the legal ability to kill people and they will (your example actually supports this, it's when the corporations collude with the government and have a chance of getting away with murder that they do). you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am pro government. I'm not. Bad government is responsible for more death than every other problem that faces humans. But I'm also a realist, as you say even the most successful of revolutions has only ever slowed government down. If I had my way the politicians would be dragged from their beds and shot tonight, but the world is not built for people like you and I. As long as intelligent people are a minority we have to engineer around the problems of government because whether you or I like it government is here to stay.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    "Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to" That's one of the most provocative things I have heard in a while. I have to make a comment here. Please forgive the intrusion. (I haven't read the entire thread) Corporations are businesses. They provide the best service or product to people at the lowest price. How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation? If you were a CEO, would you gamble the entire corporate stock on it? It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, not reality. Business is based on good faith, trustworthy contracts, and the moral and physical support of all concerned. You can't just start whacking people and expect any of that to stay around. That's not reality. Yes -- you could sell a dangerous product. But that's not killing people. It's a different thing entirely. As for "engineering government" to work for you, I assume that's the main part of your thread. I'd simply ask that you do a LOT of reading on engineering government to work for people. There have been a lot of people doing a lot of engineering, so we have a lot of history to read and learn about.