16 ms·

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of libertarianism (which is your right of course). Libertarians don't necessarily not believe in laws, they simply don'

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of libertarianism (which is your right of course). Libertarians don't necessarily not believe in laws, they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers. This is kind of the whole point. Its clear that in your world view "justice" is somehow inexorably tied to government, but there others that disagree (which leads to your confusion in thinking that because someone asks for justice he is necessarily asking for government). To illustrate this a bit better, perhaps using an example that you probably agree with Libertarians on: just because libertarians believe drugs should not be illegal, does not necessarily mean they believe drug use shouldn't be discouraged or treated. It is not hypocritical to fight for drug decriminalization but then seek rehabilitation programs for your drug addicted friends. That is in no way acquiescing to the need for drug control -- it is using a different tactic to fight a problem both sides may very well agree exists. Similarly, it is not hypocritical to want the government to stay out of currencies, but still want a method of punishing thieves. You may believe other methods don't work (just like there are a lot of red voters who think its naive to think not putting drug users in jails works), but that doesn't make the other position inconsistent.

zedshaw 13y ago
"they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers" Ahahahahaah! That's the same as not having laws! And even then, what you're saying is they believe someone should bring this guy to justice...and then do nothing to him. Then it's not justice. You're killing me my friends. Just killing me here.
- JohnBooty 13y ago
  "Ahahahahaah! That's the same as not having laws!" I'm nearly as far away from libertarian as one can be, but no - it's not the same as not having laws. Example: Old (American) West-style "frontier justice" where a bunch of townspeople form a posse or a lynch mob or whatever to right some (real or perceived) wrong. (edit: I do understand that this is only one possible scenario, and not what all or even many libertarians want)
  - brnstz 13y ago
    Mob justice is not law. For an illustration of this, check out the very first scene of the TV series Deadwood. There's a lynch mob outside the sheriff's office, and they want to kill the person in the jail. The sheriff fends them off so he can legally hang him instead. The creator originally wanted to do a series on ancient Rome, about the birthplace of civilization. The studio wanted a Western. He said, oh, perfect, that works, too.
    - MrZongle2 13y ago
      Perhaps citing a television show is not the most credible evidence one can bring to a discussion? Edit (since I cannot reply directly, apparently): why is it not credible? Can I start citing the X-Files or Star Trek? How about a broadcast of the Nancy Grace show?
      - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
        You really have trouble with this kind of discussion? I'm not sure what would fix this thinking ... Maybe you should read books or learn thought experiments or just start with basic metaphors ... hrrmphh! I'm stumped!
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        To illustrate a concept? Fictional media are ideal, as they can have the facts go however they want. What difference are you hallucinating between citing a philosophical paper discussing a thought experiment, and citing a television show?
      - brnstz 13y ago
        Why is it not credible? That scene illustrates a point even more abstract than the one we are discussing. If the result is the same (the prisoner dies), does it matter whether a legal authority performs the killing, or whether a mob does? I think it does. You may not agree with the legal authority's process or laws, but at the very least it is written down.
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
- toolz 13y ago
  ..and this my friends is what political discussion looks like. You know, even if you were/are/will become right, laughing at someone else's ideals benefits no one. It just deepens the abyss that separates logic from political differences.
- abueesp 13y ago
  Polycentric Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law + Wealth of the networks (instead of monopolistic centralism base upon territory, population and gov 300years old model Wealth of the Nations/States). Move forward. Even it is not possible eventually to have a complete monopoly of the law, except in the case of a dystopian totalitarism.
- abueesp 13y ago
  Polycentric Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law + Wealth of the networks (instead of monopolistic centralism base upon territory, population and gov 300years old model Wealth of the Nations/States). Move forward. Even it is not possible eventually to have a complete monopoly of the law, except in the case of a dystopian totalitarism.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  No, it's more like you use your money and you get your own police force and set of laws and I'll use my own and get the same and then we'll figure out our grievances ourselves. Sounds like a workable system. :)
- btilly 13y ago
  I've been having conversations on this topic recently with a libertarian who grew up in the Soviet Union. Let's just say, when you've seen laws and law enforcers monopolized by villains, it becomes quite hard to accept that justice is whatever the government and courts say it should be. While I personally like law and order, when the choice is mob justice or a police state, there are some definite advantages to mob justice.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    That actually alludes to something I noticed recently: Libertarians tend to come from countries with shitty governments, which makes sense. You're likely to be far more suspicious of the idea of government regulation if your government has a history of incompetence and malice than if you come from a country whose government, while imperfect, mostly just works.
    - iopq 13y ago
      That's true, I'm a libertarian from a country with a shitty government (United States)
      - redthrowaway 13y ago
        And you rarely see libertarians here in Canada. For all its warts, our government mostly works: healthcare is pretty good, education is pretty good, regulations are generally not onerous, taxes are pretty low, crime is pretty low, etc. It's a solid B- government, and that seems to apply regardless of who's in power. So while you get disagreements on what government should or should not do, you don't really get disagreements about whether or not government is good: it's mostly ok. I agree, the American government (on all levels) seems to be particularly dysfunctional, so it makes sense that many Americans would look at it and conclude that government writ large is bad. Combined with the American propensity for introspection and self-criticism, the very real observation that American government is bad leads to the (imho erroneous) conclusion that all government is bad, ignoring the fact that most western governments, while flawed, are nowhere near as flawed as yours is.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  Oh, I think the libertarians want something like the old posses that once went around stringing-up cattle thieves, so they would do something to the thieves if they caught them - unless fear of the state prevented this (why they think the state is unjust). Not that there aren't multitudes of other problems in their schemes.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  >Ahahahahaah!... You're killing me my friends. Just killing me here. You can make the same argument without being an ass about it.
  - locusm 13y ago
    You are far too easily offended if that's being an ass.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Probably not, because it's not a very good argument.
  - Kequc 13y ago
    I dunno man. I agree with you on that, of course you're right. But, people have limits not everyone wants to talk at length to a libertarian so mockery is employed.
    - janardanyri 13y ago
      In a public general-interest Internet conversation, when you reach the limit of your willingness to productively engage, it may be prudent to cease engaging.
      - sabbatic13 13y ago
        I wouldn't write off mockery as unproductive. It's been an element of perfectly productive political discourse since the beginning of recorded political discourse. If done well and in an informed fashion, it ends up dispelling the illusion that any ignorant bit of pseudo-theory someone can conjure up is worthy of the public sphere.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - Crito 13y ago
    If he were the sort of person that were capable of making this argument without being an ass about it, then this entire thread of discussion would not have been started in the first place. Whether you are a libertarian bitcoin drug dealer, a communist bitcoin drug dealer, or a politically apathetic cold-hard-cash drug dealer, governments don't enter the "I got ripped off, what are my options?" equation. That's just the reality of the business. Politics is a rather uninteresting tangent here, brought up really only to start a flamewar. Seriously, who gives a shit about the political opinions of drug dealers? I don't know where my dealer stands on economics, taxation, or civil rights, and I don't have any reason to care.
- banachtarski 13y ago
  This guy is an asshole. Just move along guys nothing to see here.
- nbody 13y ago
  Your comment seems more appropriate for YouTube than HN. Anyway, I guess the point is that Libertarianism has some different views but the main takeaway is about having more choices and a more lightweight state.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 13y ago
  It's not the same thing as not having laws. That's like saying that a competitive market for food is the same thing as having no food.
  - pekk 13y ago
    a war of all against all is not law.
    - gweinberg 13y ago
      It's also something that has never existed outside Hobbes' imagination
      - mpyne 13y ago
        It's rather the opposite, Hobbes's treatise explains why you didn't witness it throughout recorded history. Once a population group got large enough to have to worry about silly things like common property it ended up having leaders/warlords (either homegrown or due to conquest from abroad). But even so, you certainly saw it in recorded history when government was weaker. "Highwayman" used to connote a very scary idea, something that is most relevant in modern history to those driving in convoys in Afghanistan or Iraq. Another very good example was the actions of the FLN in French-run Algeria starting in the 1950s, where they actually more or less incited that "war of all against all", and did so from an organization that was not very centralized at all.
        einhverfr 13y ago
        > It's rather the opposite, Hobbes's treatise explains why you didn't witness it throughout recorded history. Once a population group got large enough to have to worry about silly things like common property it ended up having leaders/warlords (either homegrown or due to conquest from abroad). Is there any evidence that humans ever weren't large enough to worry about common property? I mean populations evolve, not individuals, right? And even families have common property within the household, right? If humans are social creatures, then it seems to me that this view of history can't be right because humans have always formed governments as required by our social nature. > But even so, you certainly saw it in recorded history when government was weaker. "Highwayman" used to connote a very scary idea, something that is most relevant in modern history to those driving in convoys in Afghanistan or Iraq. But bandits have almost always been a reaction to the formation (often by distinct government policies) of a destitute class. You see a major increase in banditry following the confiscation of the Monasteries under Henry VIII, for example, because this was instrumental in creating the destitute masses that would power the English Industrial Revolution. The FLN is a good example of the use of a war of all against all as a tactic to weaken governments. I don't think it is a good example of what happens without strong government though. A much better example would be blood feuds in medieval Iceland, or in weak government areas today. Blood feuds though are complex institutions. They don't really form a war of all against all. Rather they form a way for bad behavior to be punished. If a man in Papua feels that his wife has dishonored him and kills her, her brothers will likely do the same to him. This will spin around until everyone gets tired of it and decides to reconcile with some sort of settlement. As Jesse Byock has pointed out, one can see significant evidence that in medieval Iceland, the blood feud was an institution which provided a similar form of social control and stabilization to what we might think of as law and order. In short, blood feuds are law and order by a different means.
- iguana 13y ago
  zedshaw being an asshole. I'm shocked, shocked!
  - jrockway 13y ago
    How is he being an asshole? He is exactly right. Watching Bitcoin from a detached and neutral position is absolutely pure entertainment. "Hey y'all, let's make a web page for transferring money and drugs!" "But I'm not very good at programming." "No worries, there's CRYPTO!!!!!" "Oh excellent, we'll sure screw over our oppressive government now! Down with the rule of law!!" <time passes> "Uh boss, someone just untraceably and anonymously stole all of our untraceable and anonymous money!" If you're not rolling on the floor laughing, you're missing out on life.
    - lurkinggrue 13y ago
      I'm finding it quite funny and saw this coming a mile away.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      >>How is he being an a__h___? He is exactly right. Being a a__h___ and being right aren't mutually exclusive. :) Sidenote: BTW, now that we're talking, if you have a coworker at Google who can get this comment[1] removed from my channel, I'd appreciate it. I reported it as hate-speech like a month ago or something. 1. https://www.youtube.com/user/SMTDDR/discussion https://www.youtube.com/user/SMTDDR/discussion For posterity's sake - http://i.imgur.com/6kpYvcM.png http://i.imgur.com/6kpYvcM.png
      - jrockway 13y ago
        That's pretty bad. I'll look into it.
        smtddr 13y ago
        Thanks! I'm sure Google gets like a million of these a day. I'm probably in some queue somewhere.... and I've never dated a white girl. ;-)
- bmelton 13y ago
  All due respect, you're missing the point. The 'monopoly of laws' to which the parent refers are the ones like those against home distillers -- such that you're allowed to buy a distillation device, you're allowed to buy corn, you're allowed to buy sugar, yeast, etc., but you're not allowed to put them altogether to make whiskey, despite that you're allowed to buy whiskey. Another example is the Lacey act, which, if construed narrowly enough, might make it illegal to eat a steak, or to fish, or to hike through the woods. Even the most staunch of minarchists wouldn't generally repeal the 'base' laws, which are those laws that, if violated, infringe upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not, for example, suggest that murder should be legal -- everyone has the right to life. Gun control is the nearest example I can think of, so pardon me if it doesn't fit the archetype 100%, but there are literally more than 20,000 laws on the books pertaining to guns, despite the fact that each of those are just derivatives of laws already on the books. Using a gun to steal is expressly against the law, and may carry a different penalty in many jurisdictions than just 'stealing'. Why? Stealing is already illegal, and the manner in which it's done carrying a different penalty likely is just a scheme to enforce mandatory minimums to fill the prisons. Alternately, laws which are predicated upon arbitrary distinctions, such that a person with 9 ounces of pot gets away scot free, while a guy with 10 ounces of pot must serve an obligatory 5 year prison term. You're of course welcome to hate libertarianism as much as you like, but if you're original post was sincere, you're woefully ill-informed on the subject. Edit: Re-reading, I completely misinterpreted the OP's use of 'monopoly of force', and ended up making an altogether unrelated argument. That said, I consider my point both salient and well-researched, so I'll let it stand.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Even the most staunch of minarchists wouldn't generally repeal the 'base' laws, which are those laws that, if violated, infringe upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not, for example, suggest that murder should be legal -- everyone has the right to life. The set of laws is not really the problem then. Literally everyone agrees that "government should be as small as possible", the problem is that no one ever agrees as to how small that can possibly be. As soon as you're accepted the state, the "men with guns" whom the libertarians trot out as their boogeyman, the existence of a judicial system and police, etc. then the libertarians are suddenly not that far different in practice from many other parties and are even closer in theory (since apparently everyone agrees that courts and police are OK now...)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- joyeuse6701 13y ago
  Fools always laugh the hardest.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    A witty saying proves nothing.
    - Floegipoky 13y ago
      Is that recursive irony?
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        Yes.
- fredgrott 13y ago
  ah the Frank Zappa method.. for those that do not know the story.. Frank Zappa disarmed someone that tried to shoot him and than refused to call the cops
  - RankingMember 13y ago
    I think that's a Zappa myth. It's been told various ways, including yours, but also another in which he encourages the attacker to walk with the group Zappa's with to a lake, wherein they then throw their belongings into it, including the gun.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  Zed, I'm sorry, but at this point your comment has jumped the shark. You're full of crap, that's all. I'm yet to see a person who truly understands an idea and then proceeds to laugh it off just like that. For me, it's a good indicator that the person laughing doesn't know shit, and doesn't even try. It's easier to make people you disagree with feel bad about themselves than to actually engage with their arguments. (note I'm not referring to the drug dealers who lost money, but to the off-hand dismissal of ideas many honest people hold)
MartinCron 13y ago
I honestly don't get this. If there isn't a monopoly on laws and law enforcement, does that mean that victims of crimes should be able to shop around to get the law enforcement agency that they want? Should the accused? Is there any historical precedent for anything like this actually working?
- Crito 13y ago
  There are currently thousands of different sets of laws and legal systems that you can choose to subscribe/submit to. Potential victims of crimes can shop around for the legal system that they prefer, and those who intend to commit crimes can do the same. Generally this "shopping around" cannot be done retroactively; there are a few exceptions to this however. The way that you pick the one that you wish to be associated with is to change your physical location. This has traditionally been an intuitive system (so intuitive that many people experience difficulty when trying to imagine alternatives) however it does not necessarily work well when there is no geographic relationship between victims and perpetrators.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    That doesn't do anything to answer my question about where libertarians stand on the question. I still don't get what a civilization without a "monopoly on laws and law enforcement" would look like.
    - pielud 13y ago
      As another reply has suggested, David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom is an excellent book which describes how private defense, law and dispute resolution might happen. This video is a good introduction to the ideas presented in the book http://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o http://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      > That doesn't do anything to answer my question about where libertarians stand on the question. I still don't get what a civilization without a "monopoly on laws and law enforcement" would look like. Not a libertarian here, but one example regarding this might be medieval Iceland where such shopping around was encouraged and even the basis of the system, as was taking things into one's own hands and perpetrating blood feuds. Interestingly the difference between "murder" and "manslaughter" in Iceland had nothing to do with intent but rather that if you killed someone that was manslaughter, but if you failed to report it to the family of the victim properly in a timely manner, or you tried to hide the fact, then it was murder (and a far, far more serious crime). But then I suspect there's a reason why at that time, Iceland didn't have cities.
ewoodrich 13y ago
So if some group decided I was a criminal by their standards (say if I insulted them on the street, or something), they could come to my home in the night and summarily execute me?
- aaronem 13y ago
  Your common or garden libertarian will construct all manner of complex arguments as to how that isn't so, but there's really nothing in the philosophy which forbids it.
  - baddox 13y ago
    You're right. Proponents of polycentric law don't claim that something fundamentally forbids this from happening. But the same goes for proponents of centralized (government) law. What needs to be analyzed is which system makes this more likely to happen.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Ask Somalia.
      - baddox 13y ago
        I'm no expert on recent Somalian history, but I have heard people suggest that Somalia improved during its period of "anarchy," while others contend that it wasn't really anarchy, but rather a battleground of neighboring states and factions battling to be the "one government." Also, Somalia's government before it failed in 1991 was a military dictatorship; hardly something even most advocates of government would advocate. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        Feel free to list your choice of countries without any government and we will see what their quality of life ranking is vs. standard countries with functional government. Here is a handy chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...
lmg643 13y ago
seems like a good thing for bitcoin that this happened. sure - it could be a flaw in the bitcoin protocol. but could just be "there's no honor among thieves". at least when criminals exchange cash for illegal goods, there's always the possibility of in-person retribution since you know who you're dealing with. in anonymous situations for illicit goods, you don't know who you are dealing with, who you can trust, and whose kneecaps to break if they cheat you. so hey - stick to cash for the illegal stuff. let the rest of us have bitcoin for convenience.
cleaver 13y ago
Serious question: Would it be safe to say that not all self-professed libertarians agree on the definition of libertarianism? I've suspected this is the case.
- zanny 13y ago
  Liberals and conservatives won't agree on their defintions either. Communism has been routinely redefined throughout history. A philosophy of society is always a malleable nebulous concept.
  - rodgerd 13y ago
    Libertarians, however, seem mongst the quickest to head straight to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
    - 3pt14159 13y ago
      Because we actually believe in something. Most conservatives and liberals don't have a consistent moral philosophy so there is no point debating them.
      - cleaver 13y ago
        I've been trying to narrow in on that consistent moral philosophy for various ism's. I'm not sure I've gotten very close in most cases except the general concept of tribalism. Every ism seems to be willing to bend the rules if it is perceived to be the common wisdom of the tribe.
      - rodgerd 13y ago
        An ever shifting mire of something which varies from libertarian to libertarian, all insisting the other isn't the real libertarian.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    Yes, what's most important is that you're for freedom, whatever that means. Libertarianism = Freedom. Communism = Freedom. Liberals = Freedom. Conservatives = Freedom. North Korea = Freedom. USA = Freedom. Seriously what country isn't free? Who is against freedom?
joe_the_user 13y ago
I notice you don't question the "everyone is greedy" assertion, however. As I understand it, libertarians believe that justice can be attained through the adversarial institution of the market. That is, by everyone greedily fighting within the bonds of normal commerce, a just (but likely not equal), situation will arise. The gaping hole in this scenario is that those who are greedy and, say, losing or just not getting what they want from the normal framework, have every incentive to cheat in this competition. By lying, by hacking opponents computers, by assassinating opponent or whatever. I understand also that some combination of collective pressure and private enforcement is supposed to stop that from happening, sure. But all this is supposed to happen automatically, it's not an "ideal" but supposedly how things. Well, clearly things didn't work this time and given that Zed's comment on greed actually tags it.
- dnautics 13y ago
  no, libertarians don't necessarily believe that justice is attained through the market, but that market allocation of resources is more just than political allocation of resources. "everyone is greedy" is not a good characterization of libertarianism; there are plenty of libertarian social benefit groups; a good example that ties into the OP is "sean's outpost" which is a bitcoin-based organization providing for the homeless in Pensacola and running up against a lot of adversarial actions by the state. Libertarian and libertarian-leaning groups (such as the Institute for Justice) regularly advocate against the state shutting down private social benefit groups helping the less fortunate. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seans-Outpost/380918045363634 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seans-Outpost/380918045363634 libertarians sometimes espouse the "everyone likes to be efficient" pro-market argument, but there are libertarians (like myself) that find that to be weak in the light of indivdiuals being irrational. the core libertarian philosophy though really takes the "markets are moral because they are voluntary transactions" argument.
  - joe_the_user 13y ago
    "everyone is greedy" is not a good characterization of libertarianism; there are plenty of libertarian social benefit groups You are saying because not all libertarians are actually greedy, they don't believe everyone is greedy. If were to rephrase the statement as "everyone seeking individual good will result in a collective good", I don't see you really disagreeing. The problem is that we already see people seeking individual good in a truly vicious and unfettered fashion and public harm that brings (say, Mexican drug gangs fighting it out).
glasz 13y ago
this little thread is a great example of brainwashed people of all breeds who just cant grasp the concept of liberty. they love to subject themselves to the status quo and its concepts, enforced by others. because it's so beautifully easy. so please, don't poke their world view!
einhverfr 13y ago
> Libertarians don't necessarily not believe in laws, they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers. But based on my understanding this either ends up fully reinventing the public sphere under some (weird) definition of private sector (not-for-profit, incorporated, resident-owned cities) or else it cedes power to rich, powerful corporations. After all the limits of what a contract may cover is a social, and therefore political decision, right? As a Distributist, I see Libertarians as seeing a real problem and coming up with a weird solution to it. The problem is not to reduce the subject-matter scope of government (I actually think this should be expanded slightly to include running of infrastructure that is physical-monopoly territory provided that services are not provided by the government), but to reduce the geographic and demographic scale of government entities. I.e. rather than move government into the "private sector" (which becomes an empty formalism), bring government back close to the people. Empower local government and shrink central government.
EGreg 13y ago
I believe I can make the gloating rant a bit more precise. ANARCHO CAPITALISTS say that we don't need government for anything and the private market will provide it. True, with smart contracts the theft is infeasible, but it was not always so. These exchanges didn't use smart contracts. And there are other crimes than theft of bitcoins. When crimes occur the question is, who considers them crimes? Appealing to the person to PUT THE COMMUNTY AHEAD OF THEIR SELF INTEREST kind of admits that the system failed a whole community which got screwed by an individual. As for MINARCHISTS, they always have a copout that they want SOME government. But it's not clear how much or what it should do. Everyone has a different idea or no idea. And even minarchists and Objectivists tout the self reliance and the individual over the community. So why should this individual give stuff back? It was their fault for not securing their site properly. The individual can only be punished BY someone, and then it becomes communities hunting individuals.
sabbatic13 13y ago
The problem with most libertarian beliefs is that they are very high-level and most attempts to apply and create a coherent system fail miserably. At their most useful, they can influence the current system to prevent certain undesirable excesses, but as an ideology, it's long on corrections and short on workable alternatives. It's also the case that those fews well-informed and articulate libertarians who are engaged in politics never seem to be the ones who actually run for anything. Look at the Libertarian candidates for public office in the US over the years. Would you want a "ferret activist" as Lt. Governor of California? You could have had, complete with ferret in hand in his official election photo in the ballot handbook. Libertarianism is an orientation and an armchair pursuit.
ddd1600 13y ago
Wikipedia has no static definition of libertarianism. The page is the most eccentric minefield of edit wars encounterable on the web. Nice try.

zedshaw 13y ago

"they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers" Ahahahahaah! That's the same as not having laws! And even then, what you're saying is they believe someone should bring this guy to justice...and then do nothing to him. Then it's not justice. You're killing me my friends. Just killing me here.

JohnBooty 13y ago
"Ahahahahaah! That's the same as not having laws!" I'm nearly as far away from libertarian as one can be, but no - it's not the same as not having laws. Example: Old (American) West-style "frontier justice" where a bunch of townspeople form a posse or a lynch mob or whatever to right some (real or perceived) wrong. (edit: I do understand that this is only one possible scenario, and not what all or even many libertarians want)
- brnstz 13y ago
  Mob justice is not law. For an illustration of this, check out the very first scene of the TV series Deadwood. There's a lynch mob outside the sheriff's office, and they want to kill the person in the jail. The sheriff fends them off so he can legally hang him instead. The creator originally wanted to do a series on ancient Rome, about the birthplace of civilization. The studio wanted a Western. He said, oh, perfect, that works, too.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    Perhaps citing a television show is not the most credible evidence one can bring to a discussion? Edit (since I cannot reply directly, apparently): why is it not credible? Can I start citing the X-Files or Star Trek? How about a broadcast of the Nancy Grace show?
    - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
      You really have trouble with this kind of discussion? I'm not sure what would fix this thinking ... Maybe you should read books or learn thought experiments or just start with basic metaphors ... hrrmphh! I'm stumped!
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      To illustrate a concept? Fictional media are ideal, as they can have the facts go however they want. What difference are you hallucinating between citing a philosophical paper discussing a thought experiment, and citing a television show?
    - brnstz 13y ago
      Why is it not credible? That scene illustrates a point even more abstract than the one we are discussing. If the result is the same (the prisoner dies), does it matter whether a legal authority performs the killing, or whether a mob does? I think it does. You may not agree with the legal authority's process or laws, but at the very least it is written down.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
toolz 13y ago
..and this my friends is what political discussion looks like. You know, even if you were/are/will become right, laughing at someone else's ideals benefits no one. It just deepens the abyss that separates logic from political differences.
abueesp 13y ago
Polycentric Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law + Wealth of the networks (instead of monopolistic centralism base upon territory, population and gov 300years old model Wealth of the Nations/States). Move forward. Even it is not possible eventually to have a complete monopoly of the law, except in the case of a dystopian totalitarism.
abueesp 13y ago
Polycentric Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law + Wealth of the networks (instead of monopolistic centralism base upon territory, population and gov 300years old model Wealth of the Nations/States). Move forward. Even it is not possible eventually to have a complete monopoly of the law, except in the case of a dystopian totalitarism.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
No, it's more like you use your money and you get your own police force and set of laws and I'll use my own and get the same and then we'll figure out our grievances ourselves. Sounds like a workable system. :)
btilly 13y ago
I've been having conversations on this topic recently with a libertarian who grew up in the Soviet Union. Let's just say, when you've seen laws and law enforcers monopolized by villains, it becomes quite hard to accept that justice is whatever the government and courts say it should be. While I personally like law and order, when the choice is mob justice or a police state, there are some definite advantages to mob justice.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  That actually alludes to something I noticed recently: Libertarians tend to come from countries with shitty governments, which makes sense. You're likely to be far more suspicious of the idea of government regulation if your government has a history of incompetence and malice than if you come from a country whose government, while imperfect, mostly just works.
  - iopq 13y ago
    That's true, I'm a libertarian from a country with a shitty government (United States)
    - redthrowaway 13y ago
      And you rarely see libertarians here in Canada. For all its warts, our government mostly works: healthcare is pretty good, education is pretty good, regulations are generally not onerous, taxes are pretty low, crime is pretty low, etc. It's a solid B- government, and that seems to apply regardless of who's in power. So while you get disagreements on what government should or should not do, you don't really get disagreements about whether or not government is good: it's mostly ok. I agree, the American government (on all levels) seems to be particularly dysfunctional, so it makes sense that many Americans would look at it and conclude that government writ large is bad. Combined with the American propensity for introspection and self-criticism, the very real observation that American government is bad leads to the (imho erroneous) conclusion that all government is bad, ignoring the fact that most western governments, while flawed, are nowhere near as flawed as yours is.
joe_the_user 13y ago
Oh, I think the libertarians want something like the old posses that once went around stringing-up cattle thieves, so they would do something to the thieves if they caught them - unless fear of the state prevented this (why they think the state is unjust). Not that there aren't multitudes of other problems in their schemes.
redthrowaway 13y ago
>Ahahahahaah!... You're killing me my friends. Just killing me here. You can make the same argument without being an ass about it.
- locusm 13y ago
  You are far too easily offended if that's being an ass.
- baddox 13y ago
  Probably not, because it's not a very good argument.
- Kequc 13y ago
  I dunno man. I agree with you on that, of course you're right. But, people have limits not everyone wants to talk at length to a libertarian so mockery is employed.
  - janardanyri 13y ago
    In a public general-interest Internet conversation, when you reach the limit of your willingness to productively engage, it may be prudent to cease engaging.
    - sabbatic13 13y ago
      I wouldn't write off mockery as unproductive. It's been an element of perfectly productive political discourse since the beginning of recorded political discourse. If done well and in an informed fashion, it ends up dispelling the illusion that any ignorant bit of pseudo-theory someone can conjure up is worthy of the public sphere.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- Crito 13y ago
  If he were the sort of person that were capable of making this argument without being an ass about it, then this entire thread of discussion would not have been started in the first place. Whether you are a libertarian bitcoin drug dealer, a communist bitcoin drug dealer, or a politically apathetic cold-hard-cash drug dealer, governments don't enter the "I got ripped off, what are my options?" equation. That's just the reality of the business. Politics is a rather uninteresting tangent here, brought up really only to start a flamewar. Seriously, who gives a shit about the political opinions of drug dealers? I don't know where my dealer stands on economics, taxation, or civil rights, and I don't have any reason to care.
banachtarski 13y ago
This guy is an asshole. Just move along guys nothing to see here.
nbody 13y ago
Your comment seems more appropriate for YouTube than HN. Anyway, I guess the point is that Libertarianism has some different views but the main takeaway is about having more choices and a more lightweight state.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
baddox 13y ago
It's not the same thing as not having laws. That's like saying that a competitive market for food is the same thing as having no food.
- pekk 13y ago
  a war of all against all is not law.
  - gweinberg 13y ago
    It's also something that has never existed outside Hobbes' imagination
    - mpyne 13y ago
      It's rather the opposite, Hobbes's treatise explains why you didn't witness it throughout recorded history. Once a population group got large enough to have to worry about silly things like common property it ended up having leaders/warlords (either homegrown or due to conquest from abroad). But even so, you certainly saw it in recorded history when government was weaker. "Highwayman" used to connote a very scary idea, something that is most relevant in modern history to those driving in convoys in Afghanistan or Iraq. Another very good example was the actions of the FLN in French-run Algeria starting in the 1950s, where they actually more or less incited that "war of all against all", and did so from an organization that was not very centralized at all.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        > It's rather the opposite, Hobbes's treatise explains why you didn't witness it throughout recorded history. Once a population group got large enough to have to worry about silly things like common property it ended up having leaders/warlords (either homegrown or due to conquest from abroad). Is there any evidence that humans ever weren't large enough to worry about common property? I mean populations evolve, not individuals, right? And even families have common property within the household, right? If humans are social creatures, then it seems to me that this view of history can't be right because humans have always formed governments as required by our social nature. > But even so, you certainly saw it in recorded history when government was weaker. "Highwayman" used to connote a very scary idea, something that is most relevant in modern history to those driving in convoys in Afghanistan or Iraq. But bandits have almost always been a reaction to the formation (often by distinct government policies) of a destitute class. You see a major increase in banditry following the confiscation of the Monasteries under Henry VIII, for example, because this was instrumental in creating the destitute masses that would power the English Industrial Revolution. The FLN is a good example of the use of a war of all against all as a tactic to weaken governments. I don't think it is a good example of what happens without strong government though. A much better example would be blood feuds in medieval Iceland, or in weak government areas today. Blood feuds though are complex institutions. They don't really form a war of all against all. Rather they form a way for bad behavior to be punished. If a man in Papua feels that his wife has dishonored him and kills her, her brothers will likely do the same to him. This will spin around until everyone gets tired of it and decides to reconcile with some sort of settlement. As Jesse Byock has pointed out, one can see significant evidence that in medieval Iceland, the blood feud was an institution which provided a similar form of social control and stabilization to what we might think of as law and order. In short, blood feuds are law and order by a different means.
iguana 13y ago
zedshaw being an asshole. I'm shocked, shocked!
- jrockway 13y ago
  How is he being an asshole? He is exactly right. Watching Bitcoin from a detached and neutral position is absolutely pure entertainment. "Hey y'all, let's make a web page for transferring money and drugs!" "But I'm not very good at programming." "No worries, there's CRYPTO!!!!!" "Oh excellent, we'll sure screw over our oppressive government now! Down with the rule of law!!" <time passes> "Uh boss, someone just untraceably and anonymously stole all of our untraceable and anonymous money!" If you're not rolling on the floor laughing, you're missing out on life.
  - lurkinggrue 13y ago
    I'm finding it quite funny and saw this coming a mile away.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    >>How is he being an a__h___? He is exactly right. Being a a__h___ and being right aren't mutually exclusive. :) Sidenote: BTW, now that we're talking, if you have a coworker at Google who can get this comment[1] removed from my channel, I'd appreciate it. I reported it as hate-speech like a month ago or something. 1. https://www.youtube.com/user/SMTDDR/discussion https://www.youtube.com/user/SMTDDR/discussion For posterity's sake - http://i.imgur.com/6kpYvcM.png http://i.imgur.com/6kpYvcM.png
    - jrockway 13y ago
      That's pretty bad. I'll look into it.
      - smtddr 13y ago
        Thanks! I'm sure Google gets like a million of these a day. I'm probably in some queue somewhere.... and I've never dated a white girl. ;-)
bmelton 13y ago
All due respect, you're missing the point. The 'monopoly of laws' to which the parent refers are the ones like those against home distillers -- such that you're allowed to buy a distillation device, you're allowed to buy corn, you're allowed to buy sugar, yeast, etc., but you're not allowed to put them altogether to make whiskey, despite that you're allowed to buy whiskey. Another example is the Lacey act, which, if construed narrowly enough, might make it illegal to eat a steak, or to fish, or to hike through the woods. Even the most staunch of minarchists wouldn't generally repeal the 'base' laws, which are those laws that, if violated, infringe upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not, for example, suggest that murder should be legal -- everyone has the right to life. Gun control is the nearest example I can think of, so pardon me if it doesn't fit the archetype 100%, but there are literally more than 20,000 laws on the books pertaining to guns, despite the fact that each of those are just derivatives of laws already on the books. Using a gun to steal is expressly against the law, and may carry a different penalty in many jurisdictions than just 'stealing'. Why? Stealing is already illegal, and the manner in which it's done carrying a different penalty likely is just a scheme to enforce mandatory minimums to fill the prisons. Alternately, laws which are predicated upon arbitrary distinctions, such that a person with 9 ounces of pot gets away scot free, while a guy with 10 ounces of pot must serve an obligatory 5 year prison term. You're of course welcome to hate libertarianism as much as you like, but if you're original post was sincere, you're woefully ill-informed on the subject. Edit: Re-reading, I completely misinterpreted the OP's use of 'monopoly of force', and ended up making an altogether unrelated argument. That said, I consider my point both salient and well-researched, so I'll let it stand.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Even the most staunch of minarchists wouldn't generally repeal the 'base' laws, which are those laws that, if violated, infringe upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not, for example, suggest that murder should be legal -- everyone has the right to life. The set of laws is not really the problem then. Literally everyone agrees that "government should be as small as possible", the problem is that no one ever agrees as to how small that can possibly be. As soon as you're accepted the state, the "men with guns" whom the libertarians trot out as their boogeyman, the existence of a judicial system and police, etc. then the libertarians are suddenly not that far different in practice from many other parties and are even closer in theory (since apparently everyone agrees that courts and police are OK now...)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
joyeuse6701 13y ago
Fools always laugh the hardest.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  A witty saying proves nothing.
  - Floegipoky 13y ago
    Is that recursive irony?
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      Yes.
fredgrott 13y ago
ah the Frank Zappa method.. for those that do not know the story.. Frank Zappa disarmed someone that tried to shoot him and than refused to call the cops
- RankingMember 13y ago
  I think that's a Zappa myth. It's been told various ways, including yours, but also another in which he encourages the attacker to walk with the group Zappa's with to a lake, wherein they then throw their belongings into it, including the gun.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
Zed, I'm sorry, but at this point your comment has jumped the shark. You're full of crap, that's all. I'm yet to see a person who truly understands an idea and then proceeds to laugh it off just like that. For me, it's a good indicator that the person laughing doesn't know shit, and doesn't even try. It's easier to make people you disagree with feel bad about themselves than to actually engage with their arguments. (note I'm not referring to the drug dealers who lost money, but to the off-hand dismissal of ideas many honest people hold)

MartinCron 13y ago

I honestly don't get this. If there isn't a monopoly on laws and law enforcement, does that mean that victims of crimes should be able to shop around to get the law enforcement agency that they want? Should the accused? Is there any historical precedent for anything like this actually working?

Crito 13y ago
There are currently thousands of different sets of laws and legal systems that you can choose to subscribe/submit to. Potential victims of crimes can shop around for the legal system that they prefer, and those who intend to commit crimes can do the same. Generally this "shopping around" cannot be done retroactively; there are a few exceptions to this however. The way that you pick the one that you wish to be associated with is to change your physical location. This has traditionally been an intuitive system (so intuitive that many people experience difficulty when trying to imagine alternatives) however it does not necessarily work well when there is no geographic relationship between victims and perpetrators.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  That doesn't do anything to answer my question about where libertarians stand on the question. I still don't get what a civilization without a "monopoly on laws and law enforcement" would look like.
  - pielud 13y ago
    As another reply has suggested, David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom is an excellent book which describes how private defense, law and dispute resolution might happen. This video is a good introduction to the ideas presented in the book http://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o http://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    > That doesn't do anything to answer my question about where libertarians stand on the question. I still don't get what a civilization without a "monopoly on laws and law enforcement" would look like. Not a libertarian here, but one example regarding this might be medieval Iceland where such shopping around was encouraged and even the basis of the system, as was taking things into one's own hands and perpetrating blood feuds. Interestingly the difference between "murder" and "manslaughter" in Iceland had nothing to do with intent but rather that if you killed someone that was manslaughter, but if you failed to report it to the family of the victim properly in a timely manner, or you tried to hide the fact, then it was murder (and a far, far more serious crime). But then I suspect there's a reason why at that time, Iceland didn't have cities.

ewoodrich 13y ago

So if some group decided I was a criminal by their standards (say if I insulted them on the street, or something), they could come to my home in the night and summarily execute me?

aaronem 13y ago
Your common or garden libertarian will construct all manner of complex arguments as to how that isn't so, but there's really nothing in the philosophy which forbids it.
- baddox 13y ago
  You're right. Proponents of polycentric law don't claim that something fundamentally forbids this from happening. But the same goes for proponents of centralized (government) law. What needs to be analyzed is which system makes this more likely to happen.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Ask Somalia.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I'm no expert on recent Somalian history, but I have heard people suggest that Somalia improved during its period of "anarchy," while others contend that it wasn't really anarchy, but rather a battleground of neighboring states and factions battling to be the "one government." Also, Somalia's government before it failed in 1991 was a military dictatorship; hardly something even most advocates of government would advocate. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Feel free to list your choice of countries without any government and we will see what their quality of life ranking is vs. standard countries with functional government. Here is a handy chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...

lmg643 13y ago

seems like a good thing for bitcoin that this happened. sure - it could be a flaw in the bitcoin protocol. but could just be "there's no honor among thieves". at least when criminals exchange cash for illegal goods, there's always the possibility of in-person retribution since you know who you're dealing with. in anonymous situations for illicit goods, you don't know who you are dealing with, who you can trust, and whose kneecaps to break if they cheat you. so hey - stick to cash for the illegal stuff. let the rest of us have bitcoin for convenience.

cleaver 13y ago

Serious question: Would it be safe to say that not all self-professed libertarians agree on the definition of libertarianism? I've suspected this is the case.

zanny 13y ago
Liberals and conservatives won't agree on their defintions either. Communism has been routinely redefined throughout history. A philosophy of society is always a malleable nebulous concept.
- rodgerd 13y ago
  Libertarians, however, seem mongst the quickest to head straight to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
  - 3pt14159 13y ago
    Because we actually believe in something. Most conservatives and liberals don't have a consistent moral philosophy so there is no point debating them.
    - cleaver 13y ago
      I've been trying to narrow in on that consistent moral philosophy for various ism's. I'm not sure I've gotten very close in most cases except the general concept of tribalism. Every ism seems to be willing to bend the rules if it is perceived to be the common wisdom of the tribe.
    - rodgerd 13y ago
      An ever shifting mire of something which varies from libertarian to libertarian, all insisting the other isn't the real libertarian.
- fleitz 13y ago
  Yes, what's most important is that you're for freedom, whatever that means. Libertarianism = Freedom. Communism = Freedom. Liberals = Freedom. Conservatives = Freedom. North Korea = Freedom. USA = Freedom. Seriously what country isn't free? Who is against freedom?

joe_the_user 13y ago

I notice you don't question the "everyone is greedy" assertion, however. As I understand it, libertarians believe that justice can be attained through the adversarial institution of the market. That is, by everyone greedily fighting within the bonds of normal commerce, a just (but likely not equal), situation will arise. The gaping hole in this scenario is that those who are greedy and, say, losing or just not getting what they want from the normal framework, have every incentive to cheat in this competition. By lying, by hacking opponents computers, by assassinating opponent or whatever. I understand also that some combination of collective pressure and private enforcement is supposed to stop that from happening, sure. But all this is supposed to happen automatically, it's not an "ideal" but supposedly how things. Well, clearly things didn't work this time and given that Zed's comment on greed actually tags it.

dnautics 13y ago
no, libertarians don't necessarily believe that justice is attained through the market, but that market allocation of resources is more just than political allocation of resources. "everyone is greedy" is not a good characterization of libertarianism; there are plenty of libertarian social benefit groups; a good example that ties into the OP is "sean's outpost" which is a bitcoin-based organization providing for the homeless in Pensacola and running up against a lot of adversarial actions by the state. Libertarian and libertarian-leaning groups (such as the Institute for Justice) regularly advocate against the state shutting down private social benefit groups helping the less fortunate. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seans-Outpost/380918045363634 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seans-Outpost/380918045363634 libertarians sometimes espouse the "everyone likes to be efficient" pro-market argument, but there are libertarians (like myself) that find that to be weak in the light of indivdiuals being irrational. the core libertarian philosophy though really takes the "markets are moral because they are voluntary transactions" argument.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  "everyone is greedy" is not a good characterization of libertarianism; there are plenty of libertarian social benefit groups You are saying because not all libertarians are actually greedy, they don't believe everyone is greedy. If were to rephrase the statement as "everyone seeking individual good will result in a collective good", I don't see you really disagreeing. The problem is that we already see people seeking individual good in a truly vicious and unfettered fashion and public harm that brings (say, Mexican drug gangs fighting it out).

glasz 13y ago

this little thread is a great example of brainwashed people of all breeds who just cant grasp the concept of liberty. they love to subject themselves to the status quo and its concepts, enforced by others. because it's so beautifully easy. so please, don't poke their world view!

einhverfr 13y ago

> Libertarians don't necessarily not believe in laws, they simply don't believe in a monopoly of laws and law enforcers. But based on my understanding this either ends up fully reinventing the public sphere under some (weird) definition of private sector (not-for-profit, incorporated, resident-owned cities) or else it cedes power to rich, powerful corporations. After all the limits of what a contract may cover is a social, and therefore political decision, right? As a Distributist, I see Libertarians as seeing a real problem and coming up with a weird solution to it. The problem is not to reduce the subject-matter scope of government (I actually think this should be expanded slightly to include running of infrastructure that is physical-monopoly territory provided that services are not provided by the government), but to reduce the geographic and demographic scale of government entities. I.e. rather than move government into the "private sector" (which becomes an empty formalism), bring government back close to the people. Empower local government and shrink central government.

EGreg 13y ago

I believe I can make the gloating rant a bit more precise. ANARCHO CAPITALISTS say that we don't need government for anything and the private market will provide it. True, with smart contracts the theft is infeasible, but it was not always so. These exchanges didn't use smart contracts. And there are other crimes than theft of bitcoins. When crimes occur the question is, who considers them crimes? Appealing to the person to PUT THE COMMUNTY AHEAD OF THEIR SELF INTEREST kind of admits that the system failed a whole community which got screwed by an individual. As for MINARCHISTS, they always have a copout that they want SOME government. But it's not clear how much or what it should do. Everyone has a different idea or no idea. And even minarchists and Objectivists tout the self reliance and the individual over the community. So why should this individual give stuff back? It was their fault for not securing their site properly. The individual can only be punished BY someone, and then it becomes communities hunting individuals.

sabbatic13 13y ago

The problem with most libertarian beliefs is that they are very high-level and most attempts to apply and create a coherent system fail miserably. At their most useful, they can influence the current system to prevent certain undesirable excesses, but as an ideology, it's long on corrections and short on workable alternatives. It's also the case that those fews well-informed and articulate libertarians who are engaged in politics never seem to be the ones who actually run for anything. Look at the Libertarian candidates for public office in the US over the years. Would you want a "ferret activist" as Lt. Governor of California? You could have had, complete with ferret in hand in his official election photo in the ballot handbook. Libertarianism is an orientation and an armchair pursuit.

ddd1600 13y ago

Wikipedia has no static definition of libertarianism. The page is the most eccentric minefield of edit wars encounterable on the web. Nice try.