3 ms·

Libertarians, basically by definition, are people with a low group instinct. So any project that requires large numbers of them to work together tends to fall

by wmil 12y ago

Libertarians, basically by definition, are people with a low group instinct. So any project that requires large numbers of them to work together tends to fall apart. The other big problem with the micronation / charter city idea is that people get killed over land and water rights in developing nations. Just because you have the national government onside doesn't mean it's safe to ignore angry locals.

aetherson 12y ago
That may or may not be true, but it doesn't sound relevant to this case. Despite the headline gloss of a "libertarian paradise," they never actually got to the point of trying to live together or work together. Rather, it looks like some people either gave their money to a scammer or a guy who just wasn't competent to achieve his plans. As the article says, that doesn't seem like it's anything particular to any political viewpoint.
- zanny 12y ago
  I do like how some of the larger investors still want to give the plan a shot. Albeit their methods, I think, betray the ideology - so Johnson has proven himself amoral to the philosophy and thus nobody should do business with him again, and in the anarcho vision they would collectively boycott and draft contracts with anyone they associate with to also boycott him, but really they would have to go find new land since they are acknowledging his possession of the plot. I'm more interested in the politics in trying to approach nations to effectively take a chunk of land out of its jurisdiction. I doubt any state around today is really privy to the idea, and in this context I doubt Chile agreed to anything close to giving this town independence.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    I guess it depends on where exactly they stand in the grand spectrum of libertarian-anarchism. I agree with you that it's unlikely that Chile was planning on giving this area any kind of special jurisdiction, and the impression I got from the article was that they weren't really expecting any -- they were just planning on being isolated enough that they ordinarily only had to deal with other people who were similarly politically inclined. Plenty of libertarian types are fine with enough of a state that you can sue someone for breach of contract. I don't know whether these guys were. Maybe some are and some aren't. Just because they like Rand enough to name the place Galt's Gulch doesn't mean any or all of them were actually expecting hard-core anarchy.
idlewords 12y ago
Chile is not a developing nation. It's in the "very high human development" group on the UN human development index, along with the US and the usual European suspects.
- MCRed 12y ago
  Well, I've lived there, and I'll say it's certainly developing, in the sense that its economy is growing, it's building infrastructure, and the infrastructure that is there is nowhere near the standards of the USA or European countries. While I was there, the talk was that in a few years they would escape "Developing nation" status and be "developed", but I'm not sure what index for this they were referring to.
911isajoke 12y ago
It's pretty disengenious to generalize libertarians as having a low group instinct. Either that, or you are incredibly niave. Many successful entrepreneurs who have built incredible companies have a libertarian bent because of the corruption and coercion they have faced from those who seek to take rather than create. Libertarian simply means one values the principles of liberty and free will. The only people I have ever met who bash libertarians are liberals who cannot see beyond the narrow world view that has been fed to them by a system hell bent on controlling and exploiting them for its own benefit.
- 21echoes 12y ago
  > It's pretty disengenious to generalize libertarians as having a low group instinct. Either that, or you are incredibly niave. Many successful entrepreneurs who have built incredible companies have a libertarian bent because of the corruption and coercion they have faced from those who seek to take rather than create. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422644 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422644 Building a company has nothing to do with "high group instinct". > Libertarian simply means one values the principles of liberty and free will. The only people I have ever met who bash libertarians are liberals who cannot see beyond the narrow world view that has been fed to them by a system hell bent on controlling and exploiting them for its own benefit. Where Libertarians define "liberty and free will" to mean "absolutist property rights". But you know, I'm probably just some brainwashed liberal unlike user "911isajoke".
  - MCRed 12y ago
    > Where Libertarians define "liberty and free will" to mean "absolutist property rights". No. Human rights. Basic human rights, such as the ones referred to in the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights (well worth reading, and far less widely read than the amendments themselves.) By the way, using the word "absolutist" and "rights" in the same phrase is kinda redundant. If it's not an "absolute right" it's not a "right". That's the difference between a right and a privilege. Privileges can be taken away, and often were in the government of King George, resulting in a revolution, many declarations and discussion to figure out what rights man had, etc. Libertarians merely would like to see all human rights respected and protected. Unfortunately, many people feel like they deserve privileges that violate other peoples rights, but don't wish to admit that they want to violate other peoples rights (like the current popular movement to amend the constitution to remove the right of freedom of speech to people when gathered in groups).

by wmil 12y ago

aetherson 12y ago

That may or may not be true, but it doesn't sound relevant to this case. Despite the headline gloss of a "libertarian paradise," they never actually got to the point of trying to live together or work together. Rather, it looks like some people either gave their money to a scammer or a guy who just wasn't competent to achieve his plans. As the article says, that doesn't seem like it's anything particular to any political viewpoint.

zanny 12y ago
I do like how some of the larger investors still want to give the plan a shot. Albeit their methods, I think, betray the ideology - so Johnson has proven himself amoral to the philosophy and thus nobody should do business with him again, and in the anarcho vision they would collectively boycott and draft contracts with anyone they associate with to also boycott him, but really they would have to go find new land since they are acknowledging his possession of the plot. I'm more interested in the politics in trying to approach nations to effectively take a chunk of land out of its jurisdiction. I doubt any state around today is really privy to the idea, and in this context I doubt Chile agreed to anything close to giving this town independence.
- aetherson 12y ago
  I guess it depends on where exactly they stand in the grand spectrum of libertarian-anarchism. I agree with you that it's unlikely that Chile was planning on giving this area any kind of special jurisdiction, and the impression I got from the article was that they weren't really expecting any -- they were just planning on being isolated enough that they ordinarily only had to deal with other people who were similarly politically inclined. Plenty of libertarian types are fine with enough of a state that you can sue someone for breach of contract. I don't know whether these guys were. Maybe some are and some aren't. Just because they like Rand enough to name the place Galt's Gulch doesn't mean any or all of them were actually expecting hard-core anarchy.

idlewords 12y ago

Chile is not a developing nation. It's in the "very high human development" group on the UN human development index, along with the US and the usual European suspects.

MCRed 12y ago
Well, I've lived there, and I'll say it's certainly developing, in the sense that its economy is growing, it's building infrastructure, and the infrastructure that is there is nowhere near the standards of the USA or European countries. While I was there, the talk was that in a few years they would escape "Developing nation" status and be "developed", but I'm not sure what index for this they were referring to.

911isajoke 12y ago

It's pretty disengenious to generalize libertarians as having a low group instinct. Either that, or you are incredibly niave. Many successful entrepreneurs who have built incredible companies have a libertarian bent because of the corruption and coercion they have faced from those who seek to take rather than create. Libertarian simply means one values the principles of liberty and free will. The only people I have ever met who bash libertarians are liberals who cannot see beyond the narrow world view that has been fed to them by a system hell bent on controlling and exploiting them for its own benefit.

21echoes 12y ago
> It's pretty disengenious to generalize libertarians as having a low group instinct. Either that, or you are incredibly niave. Many successful entrepreneurs who have built incredible companies have a libertarian bent because of the corruption and coercion they have faced from those who seek to take rather than create. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422644 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422644 Building a company has nothing to do with "high group instinct". > Libertarian simply means one values the principles of liberty and free will. The only people I have ever met who bash libertarians are liberals who cannot see beyond the narrow world view that has been fed to them by a system hell bent on controlling and exploiting them for its own benefit. Where Libertarians define "liberty and free will" to mean "absolutist property rights". But you know, I'm probably just some brainwashed liberal unlike user "911isajoke".
- MCRed 12y ago
  > Where Libertarians define "liberty and free will" to mean "absolutist property rights". No. Human rights. Basic human rights, such as the ones referred to in the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights (well worth reading, and far less widely read than the amendments themselves.) By the way, using the word "absolutist" and "rights" in the same phrase is kinda redundant. If it's not an "absolute right" it's not a "right". That's the difference between a right and a privilege. Privileges can be taken away, and often were in the government of King George, resulting in a revolution, many declarations and discussion to figure out what rights man had, etc. Libertarians merely would like to see all human rights respected and protected. Unfortunately, many people feel like they deserve privileges that violate other peoples rights, but don't wish to admit that they want to violate other peoples rights (like the current popular movement to amend the constitution to remove the right of freedom of speech to people when gathered in groups).