Political Theory

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:57:52 GMT

gotlucky:
In theory, America (or any country) could become a libertarian nation without having some kind of statist system.

We can hope.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

gotlucky — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:52:02 GMT

Meh, I thought that was implied : /

I didn't read the OP, but I'm sure that nation = state was what the definition that people were using, but I was just throwing it out there that the idea of a nation =/= state is in fact valid. In theory, America (or any country) could become a libertarian nation without having some kind of statist system.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:19:49 GMT

gotlucky:
If you are using it as a synonym for nation state, or just state[...]

Meh, I thought that was implied : /

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

bloomj31 — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:09:21 GMT

If a nation is just a group of people unified by culture and language (philosophy?) then a libertarian nation already exists although in a disconnected, disparate form geographically speaking.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

gotlucky — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:46:49 GMT

From wiktionary:

nation (plural nations)

A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity.

The Roma are a nation without a country.

A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture

The Kurdish people constitute a nation in the Middle East

(law) (international law) A sovereign state.

Though legally single nations, many states comprise several distinct cultural or ethnic groups.

(chiefly historical) an association of students based on their birthplace or ethnicity ^syn.

Once widespread across Europe in medieval times, nations are now largely restricted to the ancient universities of Sweden and Finland.

It just depends how you are using the term. If you are using it as a synonym for nation state, or just state, then obviously no anarchist can support the idea of a nation. But the idea of a people unified by culture and language, among other things, that idea is compatible with anarchism.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

ThatOldGuy — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:48:16 GMT

bloomj31:
If people are truly libertarian they don't want a nation. Right?

Depends.

If you consider Minarchists as "true libertarians," then they would most likely be in favor of nations.

If you consider anarchist as "true libertarians," then they would most likely see a nation as arbitrary and antithetical to their beliefs.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

gotlucky — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:15:49 GMT

A nation is a group of people. A nation state is what the world is mostly made up of now. For example, you can have the German nation without having a unified nation state (west vs east). Also, ancient Greece was filled with city states but it was a Greek nation.

Depends on how you use the word.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

bloomj31 — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:17:08 GMT

Isn't "libertarian nation" an oxymoronic term?

If people are truly libertarian they don't want a nation. Right?

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

ThatOldGuy — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:28:42 GMT

Malachi:
There are no totally libertarian nations today because of ideological failings of the masses, and of powerful people, as well as of libertarian advocates themselves
this. When the ideas are right, then they will spread all by themselves, which is basically happening now.

Well said. Along these lines, this article seems comforting:

Minority Rules: Why 10 Percent is All You Need

Once 10% of a population is committed to an idea, it’s inevitable that it will eventually become the prevailing opinion of the entire group. The key is to remain committed.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

Malachi — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:37:53 GMT

There are no totally libertarian nations today because of ideological failings of the masses, and of powerful people, as well as of libertarian advocates themselves

this. When the ideas are right, then they will spread all by themselves, which is basically happening now.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

ZachSmith — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:08:02 GMT

Vaso,

I appreciated your posted question. It is something that I have struggled with as well. It is in my opinion the "chink in the armor" with regards to the practical application of pure Libertarian philosophy. In my mind, no philosophy can be purely implemented because perfect reasoning is not possible. In the case of Libertarianism, the non-aggression principal is the reason why we have not seen a more robust example of a stable, successful Libertarian social enterprise. This is true due the nature of warfare itself.

War can be defined as a violent clash of human wills. In waging war, a society (or some other actor) is attempting to oppose its will on another. This will may be noble, such as in the case of repelling an invader, or it may be evil, such as in the case of almost every initiator of war in all of history. It is important to note, however, that the basis of war is the imposition of human will. Certainly there are means available to us humans short of violence by which we can resolve conflicts. For example, we could simply convince an opponent via reason not to attack, or we could pay him off. There is also the option of capitulation in which case war would not ensue.

But there are foreseeable circumstances where capitulation to the will of an evil aggressor would be untenable and all alternatives to violence expended. In these cases, violence ensues (an opposing view is that of non-violent resistance, which will not be discussed here for brevity). In these cases a society, Libertarian or otherwise, must fight. However, resistance is futile (and therefore immoral) against a well-prepared, evil aggressor unless the Libertarian society is also well-prepared for reasons that you have already outlined (and more). Simply put, if you must fight, you must fight to win.

This is the line of reasoning that supports the claim that nuclear weapons would enable Libertarian (anarchistic?) societies to flourish - something I disagree with. The reasoning goes something like this: Organized application of violence is irrelevant if the opponent can threaten quick annihilation against aggressors via nuclear weapons. One simple, but irrefutable problem with this line of reasoning is the same problem in the employment of any modern weapon – proximity of friendlies. Relying on nukes as the primary mode of defense essentially ensures that it will have to be used in close proximity to your own homeland, greatly reducing their utility. Warfare is a fundamentally human endeavor. No application of technology will ever change that.

It is logical to stipulate that in order to be able to “fight to win,” a society must sufficiently prepare. Sadly, in preparation for war, a society will lose a piece of itself. I wholeheartedly agree that war causes a society to lose freedom and identity to a forceful, centralized state power. In my mind, this is a central dichotomy of human nature itself - in protecting what we hold dear, we lose it. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

In conclusion, the nature of warfare itself ensures that violence will be used in attempts to impose upon another. This world will always feature contests of unequal powers vying for influence. Someone will be the most powerful and they will have their say. Because of this truism, the only conclusion that I have been able to come to is that it is much better for America (be it what it may and conceding nearly every critique voiced on this website) to be on top vice any of the other potential world powers that currently exist. This does not justify the countless offensive actions taken around the world by the U.S. in the name of security. It does justify a credible capability to decisively win any military engagement.

I respectfully await any reaction to this position.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

Live_Free_Or_Die — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:15:11 GMT

“It is well known that an army is incomparably stronger than an armed crowd of the same size and with the same weapons. What gives the army great advantage is strict vertical structure, discipline when everybody follows orders of their masters, even if the masters are not exactly bright and not always competent. It makes army a single entity pursuing goals of their master.”

Why is the United States still in Afghanistan?

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

BrianMBailey — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:59:29 GMT

Vaso,

“…. why the islands of liberty have not developed into stable and powerful nations? Without finding and addressing the causes all future attempts are almost certain to follow the path of their predecessors.”

Assuming that a weak military or strong national government is a prerequisite to defending the borders of a nation is irrelevant; this is especially true in the nuclear age, where small nations can decimate large regional powerhouses. Classical and medieval era city states were small, lacked structured alliances and had limited resources.

“One of the common features of traditional state governments is militarism. War is a major tool of advancing government power. How can a libertarian nation compete with its aggressive competitors? I think many of young free nations (e.g. city states) were destroyed by direct or indirect [military] aggression.”

Libertarianism is inherently opposed to military aggressions; militarism disturbs markets, reduces value for citizens and reduces workforce and wages. Libertarian ideology competes with aggressive nations through diplomacy, trade, alliances, economic prosperity and monetary strength.

“By its very nature a libertarian nation cannot desire and persistently seek destruction of another nation”

Citizen still voice opinions and belligerent nations can still face hardships against libertarian nations that are strong (not in a militaristic sense) through economic, financial or trade pressures. Libertarian nations understand that in periods of warfare quality of life will suffer and that is why direct warfare should be mitigated as much as possible through other means. Nations with nuclear capabilities negates a large portion of the issues.

“It is well known that an army is incomparably stronger than an armed crowd of the same size and with the same weapons. What gives the army great advantage is strict vertical structure, discipline when everybody follows orders of their masters, even if the masters are not exactly bright and not always competent. It makes army a single entity pursuing goals of their master.”

I would argue that in modern warfare, with a wide range of enemy types throughout the globe, a smaller, more adaptable and capable army combined with an economic powerhouse home nation is more efficient for prolonged urban warfare and partner nation enrichment and collaboration groundwork.

I enjoyed your discussions, take care.

Brian Bailey

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 22 May 2011 07:02:51 GMT

I judge the people, not the circumstance. The early colonies were in a transitory state of affairs. It does not necessarily represent any libertarian sentiment.

Re: Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

Neodoxy — Sun, 22 May 2011 05:21:10 GMT

Alright I didn't understand exactly what you meant by libertarian. Your definition is fairly strict so most of the common examples don't really work. But anyway first of all your definition would apply to any nation which was non-militaristic or pacificistic anyway regardless of its statist as libertarian or not. Also, I believe that it is much more the case that such nations have just not appeared, rather than that they form and are then crushed.

And the United States was limitedly libertarian leading up to the civil war. How much so is debatable however. For most of the people here I daresay it would not be accepted and also that there have never really been any real libertarian nations in the first. I am immiediatly dubious of your spanish example however, as Spain is very notable for left-wing anarchist movements, that is to say the denial of the individual of his own property.