Concerning the topic of a "libertarian republic," I am discovering that it is a contradiction in terms. Presently those espousing republicanism are looking to mirror a philosophy followed during the Revolutionary and/or Post-Revolutionary America yet they are also claiming to hold dear the philosophy of libertarianism. Republicanism is geared upon the ideal that personal desires are curbed for the greater good of the public. That a civic-minded individual is better then one preoccupied with their own wealth or personal well-being. A focus on helping the community over helping one's self. Laws geared toward communal well-being rather their individuals. Other qualities such as temperance, industry, thriftiness, and an aversion to luxury go along with this civic virtue. These qualities were espoused by men during the Revolutionary period and sometime after. Seeing luxury as corrupting and causing effeminacy, they shunned European gender ideals and lifestyles. While libertarianism has no standard expression toward luxury or other virtues, it does have a belief on individual rights and/or abilities. It is focused on the individual, not a community. It does not maintain a devoution toward communal living or life except in the case of discussing individual interaction. So, when "libertarians" are talking about going "back to a republic," I do not believe they actually know what they are talking about in terms of what a republic means. While there can be some debate about the level of commerce that is involved in a republic, how it effects the political economy of a group, the basic tenets of a republic are at odds with the basic nature of libertarianism.
Thoughts?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew! Haven't heard from you in a while. Have you checked out http://libertyhq.freeforums.org, the new happenin' forum?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Andrew Cain: Republicanism is geared upon the ideal that personal desires are curbed for the greater good of the public. That a civic-minded individual is better then one preoccupied with their own wealth or personal well-being. A focus on helping the community over helping one's self. Laws geared toward communal well-being rather their individuals. Other qualities such as temperance, industry, thriftiness, and an aversion to luxury go along with this civic virtue. These qualities were espoused by men during the Revolutionary period and sometime after. Seeing luxury as corrupting and causing effeminacy, they shunned European gender ideals and lifestyles. While libertarianism has no standard expression toward luxury or other virtues, it does have a belief on individual rights and/or abilities. It is focused on the individual, not a community. It does not maintain a devoution toward communal living or life except in the case of discussing individual interaction. So, when "libertarians" are talking about going "back to a republic," I do not believe they actually know what they are talking about in terms of what a republic means. While there can be some debate about the level of commerce that is involved in a republic, how it effects the political economy of a group, the basic tenets of a republic are at odds with the basic nature of libertarianism.
Republicanism is geared upon the ideal that personal desires are curbed for the greater good of the public. That a civic-minded individual is better then one preoccupied with their own wealth or personal well-being. A focus on helping the community over helping one's self. Laws geared toward communal well-being rather their individuals. Other qualities such as temperance, industry, thriftiness, and an aversion to luxury go along with this civic virtue. These qualities were espoused by men during the Revolutionary period and sometime after. Seeing luxury as corrupting and causing effeminacy, they shunned European gender ideals and lifestyles. While libertarianism has no standard expression toward luxury or other virtues, it does have a belief on individual rights and/or abilities. It is focused on the individual, not a community. It does not maintain a devoution toward communal living or life except in the case of discussing individual interaction. So, when "libertarians" are talking about going "back to a republic," I do not believe they actually know what they are talking about in terms of what a republic means. While there can be some debate about the level of commerce that is involved in a republic, how it effects the political economy of a group, the basic tenets of a republic are at odds with the basic nature of libertarianism.
Pardon my french, but what the hell are you talking about? Of what relevance to the concept of a republic are the founding fathers' thoughts on civic virtues and luxury? Of what relevance to the concept of a republic is the instance of the American republic?
A republic is a system of government wherein men are ruled by laws, not men. Ideally. How exactly is this incompatible with the basic nature of Libertarianism?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
any sort of state is incompatible with libertarianism. either you are against the initiation of violence or you are in favour of it.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
A republic just means 'rule of law.' So firstly, I think libertarians do want a society where law is upheld, they just want it done as a product of free association and the market rather than by an institution of coercion such as a government.
In thinking of what a free society might call its structure, I've thought perhaps the phrase "a republic of sovereigns" would convey the proper concepts. Each person in a free society claims individual sovereignty. They institute law among themselves as a product of individual agreement, meaning each person must agree to a law for it to apply to them. There are no representatives to force laws on anyone, no delegates. Neither is this direct democracy, for there are no community-wide votes. Each person has utter say over what legal structures, forms, or rules they exist within, and can shuck off these structures at will and invalidate their application to them.
This much more closely captures the state that libertarians have always imagined would arise among free people without government institutions, while contravening the usual image conjured by the term 'anarchy' that the masses assume is the state that must arise when there is no government in a region.
Meistro: any sort of state is incompatible with libertarianism. either you are against the initiation of violence or you are in favour of it.
Law need not come about as a product of the state. It's possible to crowd-source laws, or to have each individual decide what laws they will live by. So perhaps the problem is that people have been conflating laws with governments as inextricable.
"Pardon my french, but what the hell are you talking about? Of what relevance to the concept of a republic are the founding fathers' thoughts on civic virtues and luxury? Of what relevance to the concept of a republic is the instance of the American republic?
A republic is a system of government wherein men are ruled by laws, not men. Ideally. How exactly is this incompatible with the basic nature of Libertarianism?"
The "Founding Fathers" believed that civic virtue and an aversion to luxury was necessary in order to maintain a republic. Looking back at the Greek cities, these individuals found historical lessons on how to formulate a republic but there was a distinction between the classical and modern period. Many "Founders" believed in a stadial development of humanity, general speaking a hunter/gather phase, a tribal or burgeoning agriculture phase, a complex agricultural phase and a phase of trade/commerce. The final stage was something many "Founders" feared because it represented a decaying phase brought on a love of money, luxury and comfort. Just like a nation was born, they also died. The "Founders" were hoping to stave this death in their new Republic by ingraining a sense of civic virtue, a belief that the demands of the public should come before person desires, in the hope of stopping this decaying phase.When looking at Britain and their mercantilist system, they saw the ravages of a overtly industrialized nation that was dependent upon markets in order to sustain itself. Many manufacturing jobs in Britain were actually done by impoverished laborers give industry the the sigma of being lower-class. Contributing to the decay of Britain was also their love of luxury which produced effeminate men and ungenteel (according to Americans) women. Women who injected themselves into a public sphere they were not expected to inhabit. You can see this in the letters written by Thomas Jefferson in which people are seeking his advice concerning whether they should send their children to Europe to receive an education. Jefferson believed that Europe sapped the republicanism from Americans and saddled them with vices such as gambling and promiscuity. This created "poor citizens" who were incapable of doing anything for their country and were a severe burden upon it. So in order to ensure that America did not turn out like Britain, these "Founders" preached a doctrine of being against forms of luxury and to certain degrees against industry. The spectrum varied concerning how much commerce was good for a nation, you have Hamiltonians moving toward heavy industry while Jeffersonians believing in heavy agriculture.
So you ask what does luxury and civic virtue have to do with a republic? It has everything to do with the foundation of the American republic. It is among the greatest questions debated by the individuals who created this system and there are people who say we should return to it without even understanding what they are saying. This is of course not directed towards you, unless you consider yourself one of those people and have not given thought to the American republican system.
On a side note: I actually discovered a fun fact today. To anyone who is familiar with the Frederick Jackson Turner Frontier thesis, the thesis that somewhat justified the extension of the American empire overseas during the late nineteenth early twentieth-century by such individuals as Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson etc. that was actually started by Benjamin Franklin. Not the exact version that Frederick would use but a proto-version. One that stated that for a republic to sustain itself it would need a large continuance of land (a frontier).
Well this is rather dull. I guess the frequent posters left while I was gone.
Yeah, we all went here.
gotlucky: Yeah, we all went here.
Collectivist ;)