(no subject)

[hnpcc]

My Political Views
I am a left moderate social libertarian
Left: 4.62, Libertarian: 1.68

Political Spectrum Quiz


What amuses me about this is that Libertarianism is one of the political systems that I just cannot understand how it's supposed to work IRL. Communism (in the ideal sense) I can see, socialism (ditto), capitalism (ditto)... but libertarianism I've never been able to get my head around the nuts and bolts of how it would actually work. I need someone to set up something like a SecondLife world with real world attributes (except the pesky indigenous inhabitants...) and set up an ideal libertarian society so I can see it. I don't mind/care if they start it from a 21st century level of technology as long as the physical attributes are real world (i.e. no one can just fly in their bodies/live underwater without external technology/need energy sources for heat/food etc) and there's some level of society building to start with.

For all I know of course someone's already done it... but I would like a group similar to the kibbutzim to go and do it virtually from scratch so I can see how it could work.

Comments

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

As I understand it (I used to call myself a Libertarian at one time) a libertarian state in practice functions much like a frontier state. There would be courts and police, but these would be minimal. No military; citizens would be armed and be able to serve in a militia force if needed. Education is extremely important, citizens are expected to be civic-minded and highly educated. Businesses would have only minimalist regulations. Not sure how libertarians feel about unions, but the states where libertarianism is most popular don't allow unions anyway, and I've never lived in a state that did allow them, so it's never been something I felt the need to know.

The problem with the ideal libertarian society is that it breaks down far too easily if too many people are corrupt or violent, because of the emphasis on not restricting the liberties of people or businesses. It seems like there wouldn't be a large enough police force (because the very idea of a police force runs contrary to the ideals) to control the violent and insane folks. However, this form of almost-no-government (just like the other pure forms I suppose) works pretty well with small populations of normal law-abiding people. It's basically the default frontier culture, and very similar to what actually took place when America was under colonial rule. 1700s 13-colonies America (or a misty-eyed idealized version of same) is actually the ideal condition; the 1800s western frontier culture a second best (too many fugitive criminals from more populous areas).

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Also, forgot to mention. About 10 years ago the Libertarian Party started a project to make New Hampshire an experimental libertarian state. It was chosen because it was already the closest match in government and culture. They were encouraging party members to move there, don't know if they still are or not.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Oh, and...

My Political Views
I am a left moderate social libertarian
Left: 4.37, Libertarian: 2.69

Political Spectrum Quiz (http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html)

[hnpcc]

The problem with the ideal libertarian society is that it breaks down far too easily if too many people are corrupt or violent, because of the emphasis on not restricting the liberties of people or businesses.

Or even just not particularly civic-minded and cheap! (I'm thinking of illegal waste disposal here, in case you're wondering. Because that happens a fair bit, even in societies like here where there are people checking up on it and legal fines. Let's not get started on WorkSafe issues either!)

The person I was talking to about this was espousing it as the ideal solution for entire nations - to be honest my main stuttering point was how roads got built. Their solution seemed to be that everyone had to agree to build them and agree to them going through property etc. I still can't see how that would work! :-)

However, this form of almost-no-government (just like the other pure forms I suppose) works pretty well with small populations of normal law-abiding people.

And essentially unlimited land to move on to when the disagreements break out, high employment (workers can move to new jobs if mistreated/asked to work in unsafe conditions given there's no legal fallback) and, as you said, a predominantly homogenous law-abiding population (difficult when, as in frontier cultures) you have to civilisations with differing ideas of what is and isn't lawful rubbing up against each other.

Hm, still interesting.

[hnpcc]

I had actually read that recently in the context of the US elections, particularly the candidate's positions on health care reform.

New Hampshire was described as the most libertarian state (the motto does kind of give it away a tad...) and Vermont as the most socialist (no idea what their motto is). Again, both of those places have very small (~1.3 million for New Hampshire; 0.6 million for Vermont), reasonably dispersed populations (although the population density for New Hampshire is 20/50 (146.7/sq mi); Vermont is 30/50 (67.2/sq mi)) relatively speaking[1], which must make for some interesting cross-border discussions. Heh.

[1]Relative to the other 48 at least. Well, maybe not Alaska. But definitely to New York.

[hnpcc]

Did you find there were a lot of questions where you went "well, sort of because under these circumstances yes, but under these circumstances no"?

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and "well, technically yes, but on a large scale this probably isn't the best policy" and "depending on your definition of some somewhat politically-charged terms in the question" and "only if everybody else is reasonable and interested in the well-being of society as a whole"

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

I don't know how Australian states work, but American states are essentially mini-countries unto themselves. Gradually over the history of the country certain aspects have become more centralized, but each state still has its own specific culture that in most cases is still based on the characteristics of the original settlers in that area.

The West, and particularly the Southwest, has a more fluid culture as far as the law is concerned, partially because it hasn't been settled as long, and partially because of the continuing massive influx of immigrants from Latin America. The New Orleans diaspora from a couple years ago has made things pretty interesting recently...

And Vermont's state motto appears to be "Freedom and Unity"... yes, quite a bit less libertarian than New Hampshire. But generally in small, mostly rural and fairly isolated (by mountains) populations like that, nearly any form of government is tenable as long as the locals agree on it.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, infrastructure is a huge problem for libertarianism. Presumably the roads would get built, but they'd be toll roads covered in advertising for the company that built the road? Of course in horse-and-buggy days with no electricity, infrastructure wasn't the huge issue that it is today, but a modern society simply couldn't function like this.

Other problems are care for the poor and the sick. The argument is that these issues are adequately covered by charity organizations, but this is so obviously ludicrous that it'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Basically the whole system depends on EVERYONE being highly educated, perfectly altruistic, involved in government, and interested in the common good. Otherwise WAY too much falls through the cracks.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

As a side note, one irony here is that these Latin American immigrants are leaving their mostly-Marxist dirt-poor home countries to come here where they can make money, but they seem to assume our legal system is as optional (meaning to be subverted, bribed, or ignored whenever you think you can get away with it) as that of their home country, and vote in a way that is in line with the government of their home country. It seems like they're trying to create what they left, which is funny until you realize that it's more likely that they didn't leave because they disagreed with the government, but because the economy sucked. Though I'm not entirely sure you can have your cake and eat it too in this respect. Not without some more human evolution, anyway.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Oh, but Native Americans can be discounted because they were just (some nomadic hunter-gatherers, some stationary farmers, depending on whether the local climate and soil could support farming) loosely affiliated tribes of barbarians. Who were mighty pissed off that somebody showed up and stole their land, but since they didn't have any science to speak of (comparatively speaking) or even a written language (in North America, anyway) they were disposable.

But I might have just a teensy chip on my shoulder about this, given that my ancestors were Cherokee (farming culture based in the Southeast, they actually assimilated better than most tribes because they just weren't particularly warlike, nor particularly dark-skinned. And they were still subject to mass displacement at the hands of the government and had their farmlands confiscated).

[hnpcc]

they seem to assume our legal system is as optional (meaning to be subverted, bribed, or ignored whenever you think you can get away with it) as that of their home country

I think that's a side-effect of immigrating - you tend to assume things are similar to how they work in your own country until proven otherwise. And, particularly if you deal predominantly in a large group of compatriots, they frequently are. ;-)

A side note - I often get e-mails from a friend of mine who migrated to the US, usually when he's hit some cultural barrier he wasn't previously aware of and is sitting there going "wtf?!? Why is that there?"

As to the voting - heh, I'd be voting similarly to how I'd vote here too, which for me means effectively "for crying out loud, adopt a rational health care system!" ;-)

it's more likely that they didn't leave because they disagreed with the government, but because the economy sucked.

In general, yeah. The majority of people don't particularly want to leave where they are, and very few people who aren't being actively persecuted migrate because they disagree with the government. The opportunity to get yourself and your family out of poverty is and probably always will be a much stronger motivator. And, for some, the sense of adventure and/or marriage of course!

[hnpcc]

It is one of the things I find fascinating about the US, how the states work. Our states aren't mini-countries, and are actually fairly similar in how things work and culture[1]. Probably because they were all settled by the same dominant ethnic group at roughly the same time (1788-1861ish. Although you could argue that 1901, or 1911 would also work as dates there.)

[1] having said that there are cultural differences between states, and within states. NT and far north Queensland/WA have a high percentage of indigenous population compared to Victoria and Tasmania. Sydney and Melbourne have people who have migrated from a much wider range of backgrounds than live in rural Victoria and NSW. But overall the dominant group of settlers were Anglo-Celtic.

The New Orleans diaspora from a couple years ago has made things pretty interesting recently...

Yeah, I've been wondering how that was going - the cultures of New Orleans (and Louisiana come to that) and Texas are quite different from what I've seen!

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Most of them did end up in Texas, but refugees from New Orleans ended up being bused as far away as Utah and Minnesota. 80-90% of them have stayed wherever they ended up.

Around here the biggest difference I've noticed was a spike in crime rate right after the disaster that seems to be leveling off now, albeit higher than it was before. Most of the refugees that ended up here in the Dallas area, although initially they got free rent for 6 months to a year in suburban apartment complexes, have migrated to the inner city, so haven't changed voting patterns a whole lot.

Texas is large enough to have several regional culture groups (mostly corresponding to different waves of settlers), and in school we had Texas history in a rotation with world and US history, so by the time I graduated high school I'd had 3 years of it. It's actually quite fascinating. Our state government is partially borrowed from Spain (from when Texas was part of the colony of New Spain) and partly from the US (which Texas seceded from New Spain with every intention of joining). Given that the revolution itself was an act of duplicity, it's hardly surprising that the constitution itself has a bit of an authoritarian bent, except that the power is concentrated in the Congress (we have a State Senate and House, just like the US) and the governor's duties are mostly ceremonial (he has veto power, but the veto is easy enough to override that it's a bit useless).