Political Theory

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

liberty student — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:06:56 GMT

Peter Manousakos:
You're all presenting terrific agruments, but honestly, how can classical liberalism hope to thrive in a culture that does not make it a citizen's obligation to know the workings of representative government?

How can you have liberalism with positive obligations?

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

Peter Manousakos — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:01:51 GMT

In response to number 2, I respectively submit that an educated society uncorrupted my media distributed political propaganda is the ultimate check on expanding government. You're all presenting terrific agruments, but honestly, how can classical liberalism hope to thrive in a culture that does not make it a citizen's obligation to know the workings of representative government?

This is a great dialogue. Thank you.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:53:50 GMT

macsnafu:
What you and others are missing is the fact that societies and cultures evolve and change over time. Your "Study" would presumably involve present-day people who have lived all their lives in the current status quo. Unless they are of a philosophical or ideological bent, or just contrarian, they most likely would still prefer to live under a state--not because it is "natural" for humans to do so, but because it is what they're used to.

This is precisely why a study is needed. You and I are both making assertions that need empirical evidence in order to be proven. If given the opportunity to be free, what would people do? That's the primary question.

An advanced study would be to have pure anarcho-capitalists establish a society and then see whether their children develop behaviors that lead to a state. That would be a long-term study. If the first study were to succeed, then I'm sure you'd have a ton of participants sign up for the long term study.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:46:41 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

as they are individuals in differing circumstances to HK'ese then necessarily they have comparative advantage, and their will be gains from trade.

That is of course the irony. The project could prove more successful even to the point of paying for itself. The question then becomes what will the states do - especially the state that was paid off to allow the experiment to go on? My hope would be for that state to relinquish its power and expand the project - or its more likely that the people under this state realize they've been duped and abandon the state in favor of freedom.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

macsnafu — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:46:01 GMT

K.C. Farmer:
Quite true. Perhaps I should have phrased these statements as questions to be answered with empirical evidence as part of a study on human behavior.

What you and others are missing is the fact that societies and cultures evolve and change over time. Your "Study" would presumably involve present-day people who have lived all their lives in the current status quo. Unless they are of a philosophical or ideological bent, or just contrarian, they most likely would still prefer to live under a state--not because it is "natural" for humans to do so, but because it is what they're used to.

Classical liberalism had its flaws, granted, but overall, it was a huge step politically for society to take, developing the ideas of individual righs and limited government, and getting away from emperors and kings. Anarchism is as close to a "natural" state as you can find for humans, but society currently goes to great lengths to take men out of that natural state. An anarcho-capitalist society will not be created overnight, but only as society and culture come to recognize its virtues and no longer have an irrational fear of it, will it develop into a large-scale political reality. It is not inevitable unless men continue to progress and work towards greater liberty for their fellow man. In the long run, I think we'll eventually get there, but it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:41:37 GMT

K.C. Farmer:
Don't see why not. That of course requires they have something Hong Kong wants.

as they are individuals in differing circumstances to HK'ese then necessarily they have comparative advantage, and there will be gains from trade.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:33:48 GMT

Don't see why not. That of course requires they have something Hong Kong wants.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:28:50 GMT

K.C. Farmer:
Now the size of the population will have natural limits on the available goods. So while it's possible to create some pretty elaborate goods with 5000 people, your average good is going to be modest in terms of technology. But hey, if those 5000 people decide that wrestling on HD TV is what they want, then so be it (not that that would be my choice).

can't they free trade with the outside world, like say, Hong Kong?

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:17:47 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

K.C. Farmer:
5000 participants are brought to a secluded area where there are available natural resources for an extended period of time (let's say 5 years).

what level of wealth of capital goods would they have access to? I'm trying to decide whether to join up.

Location would obviously be a factor - not only for resources but also to prevent the state over such a location to allow the study to continue unimpeded. This state would essentially have to be paid off to cover any taxes and to remove any potential interference.

The participants would also be a factor. 5000 unskilled ditch diggers wouldn't be representative of a modern society. Of course the skills required to convert undeveloped land are different than those of modern society too. There would have to be a proper mix that fits the setting.

The study isn't about creating technology from day 1, so there should be a reasonable amout of tools, equipment, raw materials, and other goods that participants are allowed to bring into the study or are provided to simulate the accumulation of such resources over a longer period of time. For example, doctors would require a modest amount of medical equipment and supplies to handle 5000 people for a 5 year period.

Technology requirements would be running water and waste - to be privately owned of course. Privately owned power. Each participant would have the resources to fund the construction of 1 house and lay the various power, water and sewage lines through their property (call this their inheritance). To start they may have to live in trailers or some other portable living quarters until their projects are realized. These would not be free, of course, and they could opt to live in a tent and rough it if they so choose.

Now the size of the population will have natural limits on the available goods. So while it's possible to create some pretty elaborate goods with 5000 people, your average good is going to be modest in terms of technology. But hey, if those 5000 people decide that wrestling on HD TV is what they want, then so be it (not that that would be my choice).

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:56:43 GMT

liberty student:
Methodological individualism please!

Add the word "vigilant" and you're spot on.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:55:10 GMT

K.C. Farmer:
5000 participants are brought to a secluded area where there are available natural resources for an extended period of time (let's say 5 years).

what level of wealth of capital goods would they have access to? I'm trying to decide whether to join up.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

Solid_Choke — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:52:29 GMT

Samarami:

statism (even if minimal) is theoretically impossible

If you are right, then I don't live in a statist society.

I do live in a statist society.

You aren't right.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:45:04 GMT

Saan:
Herein lies your assertion nothing more.

Quite true. Perhaps I should have phrased these statements as questions to be answered with empirical evidence as part of a study on human behavior.

Study: 5000 participants are brought to a secluded area where there are available natural resources for an extended period of time (let's say 5 years). Each participant is permitted to stake a claim and establish a homestead. There is no government, no established rules other than the NAP. Each participant would be interviewed periodically to see how they are adjusting to this new way of life. Participants would be asked a variety of questions, including those on the establishment of democracy or a state - this of course must be handled correctly so as not to influence the study. What would happen? Would we see the formation of quasi-states, gangs or other such groups? What would be their reasons? Has the current way of existence, with the state, tainted the judgement of individuals?

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

jct181 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:56:15 GMT

"And allow they do. In spades. If you don't believe that, look at "health care" and the "debates" in the District of Collectivism...er, Columbia ."

Quick Reply

That's why we the people have to take action. We can vote in elections, and if our elected officials don't honor the constitution, then we have the second amendment (obviously that's for extreme cases).

Liberty is something that will die very quickly if it is not upheld by every subsequent generation.

Re: The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

Samarami — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:18:51 GMT

Cavalier 973 wrote:

"...These are compelling reasons for why a State could rise in an anarcho-capitalism area, at least a few generations after the original establishment of the an-cap nation. I have wondered how a stateless society could be maintained, when the individuals that make up society seem so prone to embracing Leviathan...."

A basic "compelling reason" might be that of two foxes who decide there should be agreement with yonder lamb for agreement as to what's for lunch