>Libertarians [lp.org] , on the other hand, are a bunch of independent SOBs >who have trouble agreeing on enough issues to form a political party
Unlike the members of the two major parties, we agree on nearly all major political issues, but we get hung up in the principles, like how many objectivists can dance on the head of a pin. Since we tend to care more about principles and purity more than actual achievement of practical goals, we tend to get bogged down without making progress.
The Free State Project is a practical project that avoids detailed ideological discussions. Those are interesting, and they have their place, which is somewhere else.
"Utopianism" is a primitive but common epithet. Communism was utopian ("let's change human nature!"), but there is nothing utopian about wanting to reduce taxes, legalize drugs and prostitution, and adopt a neutral foreign policy. Those three things are already successfully in place in Singapore, The Netherlands, and Switzerland--nothing new or impractical about them.
Concretely, what form do you think the opposition would take? The US already admits vast(er) numbers of immigrants, and throughout history has had other much larger internal migrations (the Mormons, the Okies and Arkies, the black migration northward). My native California has seen an inward migration orders of magnitude greater than what we are planning, and yes, it significantly changed the political landscape. No worries, we can also vote with our feet.
See our FAQs. Someone did start an FTP, and we wish him well. However, since our numbers are growing astronomically (we were only at 300 at the beginning of August), we feel that we have a moderate approach that many people will feel comfortable with.
I am not going to waste a lot of time countering each of the above statements, which obviously will respond to swords like a hydra's head.
>In fact, one would think that a simpler legal >code would make it much easier to litigate,
Frequently new legislation (like the Civil Rights Act) create new openings for litigation.
>You complain that the US has such a complex legal system, >yet the US has had the highest rate of economic growth in recent years.
Only in very recent years has the US had a *relatively* high rate of economic growth *in comparison with other industrialized nations*, which (e.g. Germany) coincidentally have even more legislation and regulation. US growth has not been the highest (e.g. Ireland's is higher) and the recent spike (now ended) was an exception to a very long-acting rule: US GDP growth had slowed to a fraction of what it used to be, strange, given the more rapid growth in technology. Even if it does rise again, that does not mean that it could not be higher, e.g. the enormous cost of regulation has been well documented http://www.cato.org/research/reglt-st. html
>The SINGULAR difference, I'm sure, between the prison population in Russia >and the one in the US is that 99.99999% of the Americans KNOW EXACTLY WHY they are in jail
I once violated the tax code, unknowingly, and got a hefty fine. Now I pay an expert, because the tax code is too complex, and the penalty for noncompliance too high. Is your "SINGULAR" difference somehow a sufficient condition for justice? Of course not. And, in fact, it is not a difference: Russians know just as well why they are in prison. Two weeks ago I was in a car in Moscow and we were stopped by three cops. They hassled one woman about her papers for nearly half an hour. She knew "EXACTLY WHY", but that did not make it just. Moscow has complex residency laws that many cannot comply with: the cops exploit that by taking bribes.
>NO OTHER COUNTRY on this earth are there such strong >procedural safeguards put in place to protect people.
That was a very strange assertion, and telling. And false. The end result of your "strong procedural safeguards" is by far the highest level of 1) homicide, 2) incarceration, and 3) executions in the industrialized world. Isn't that a small hint that we should re-examine the rules, e.g. those against drugs?
Some references:
Richard Epstein, who is not merely a lawyer but a professor of law at the University of Chicago, wrote a book called "Simple Rules for a Complex World", published by Harvard University Press: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai l/-/0674 808215/
The introductory chapter is titled "Too Many Lawyers, Too Much Law". Epstein is highly respected, and coincidentally I just heard him interviewed a couple of days ago on the radio.
In "The Structure of Liberty", Prof. Randy Barnett also argues for a return from hyperlegislation to the traditional common law: http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/TOC.htm
"The Calculus of Consent", by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, which won the former a Nobel prize in economics (by the way, another libertarian just won this year, bring the number to at least four that I know of): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/ -/0472 061003/
"Government Failure", a more accessible textbook on the above Public Choice Theory recently appeared, again co-written by Tullock: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1 930865201/
>because we could operate our society only on the Ten Commandments, no?
Uh, no. Did I say that? Surely there is some happy medium between the Ten Commandments and our current legal code? Why do you attack such a straw man? The explosion in law and litigation occurred relatively recently; somehow our society had been able to get along without it--what happened? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ 0452268249/
>the reason that our legal system...is so complex is because >we CAN'T operate our society only on the Ten Commandments.
I would disagree with that assertion (ignoring the silly Ten Commandments reference, and assuming that you mean "a relatively simple code"). With a little imagination you should be able to think of some alternative reasons why our legal system has become so complex, e.g. that Congress in the last several decades has been unchained to legislate in areas that had been denied it by the Constitution. Here is some food for thought: http://www.overlawyered.com
I write you this from Moscow, which I first visited in 1986. The USSR was an example of a nation with complex laws that that *stifled* the society, to the point of collapse. You can't just state without proof that things as they are necessarily evolved that way for a good reason, whether you are talking about a person's metastasized cancer or our current complex laws. I live now in Germany, and I get the same crap from Germans: we need laws, we need order. If the stores were allowed to operate on Sundays, we would have chaos in the streets. Well, maybe with fewer laws Germany wouldn't have the lowest rate of economic growth in Europe.
>we CAN'T operate our society only on the Ten Commandments. >Imagine the "injustice!", the "unfairness!" of a society like that.
The US recently overtook Russia as the nation with the highest per-capita prison population in the world. Imagine the "injustice!" and "unfairness!" of that. That so many people are defined as criminals suggests that maybe we should re-examine some of the laws.
I disagree with the tone of that comment for two reasons:
1. If a legal system, like a religion or a tax code, is so complex that only the high priests can understand it, then it is too complex. Simple rules are more likely to be read, understood, remembered, followed, and enforced, and at a lower cost. Our legal system is now a self-contradictory monster that frequently violates rights instead of enforcing them.
2. Despite their extensive educations, lawyers, like doctors and other arrogant initiates of the divine mysteries, frequently have significant holes in their understanding of the foundations of their discipline. I have recently been arguing with a lawyer friend at the International Criminal Court in The Hague about human rights, and it is clear that her understanding of the theoretical basis of why they are trying Milosevic & Co is less than complete. Sex tip for geeks: arguing such topics is *not* a good way to seduce a woman.
Good point. I guess do like Clinton: just don't inhale. Of course, drugs are expensive, so a display of civil disobedience would be a burden. I imagine that prostitutes would donate their time to such an effort, just don't
Civil disobedience deserves a much bigger place in our society. It has a noble history with revered names like Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, and this moral authority should be used.
As a matter of principle, we should be using civil disobedience to protest all victimless "crimes". Civil disobedience is a coordination problem, doing little good if only one person practices it, so it requires advance agreement and commitment. Maybe we need an organization and web site to coordinate CD movements; there are unfortunately lots of opportunities.
>Don't take offense to this, but you Libertarians are morons.
If I took offense at every moron's comments, I would indeed be a moron. But if we do make you crazy, please facilitate our relocation to a single state so as to spare you further contact. Our feeling about people like you is mutual, and we wouldn't complain. One of the inescapable weaknesses of democracy is that everyone gets the right to vote, no matter how unworthy; I would be happy without you in my electorate.
>In case you hadn't noticed the Federal government isn't about >to entertain the thought of 20,000 people making their own "state".
In case you hadn't noticed, that is not what we are doing. Critics of libertarianism are best at attacking strawmen. By the way, how do expect the USG to respond, with tanks?
>Your vaunted "freedoms" are just another word for "foolishly willfull anarchy."
The depth of your political theory would indeed make the Founders proud. If you want to critique libertarianism, go to http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html an d come back with some ammo.
Our vaunted "freedoms" (um, why the quotes?) are nothing out of the ordinary, and found singly in various states and countries, and tested over time in the US. Libertarians want the personal freedoms of the Netherlands, the neutrality of Switzerland, and the economic freedom of Hong Kong--all demonstrably successful countries in their own way. Citing states, the legalized prostitution of Nevada, the taxes of the lowest taxing state, the "death with dignity" of Oregon, the school vouchers of Ohio, the right to bear arms of Maine, the homosexual marriage of Vermont, the legalized marijuana of...well, you're not quite there yet in the US; best to look to Europe for guidance on that one.
Besides your suggested issues of intellectual property, privacy, and jobs, how about
taxation (since we tend to make above-average salaries, and are highly mobile)
immigration (since immigrants are a major part of our industry)
Depends on how peripheral you want to get.
I am a little surprised by all the off-topic verbage by and about foreign readers, as most of these same issues affect people in most countries. Given the historically high and increasing share of trade in our economies, and how much the US exports software and depends on IP protection for those exports, what furreners think does matter. Also, when a country sets sensible policies, it can attract skilled workers from less sensible countries; thus does the US lure workers from much of the world, and Ireland lures companies from the US. I am an American expat living in (privacy-obsessed) Germany, and I cannot wait to return to working in Russia, under a 13% flat tax!!
>Just like the whole "War on Terrorism" is >pointless, so is a war on capitalism.
Worse, using "war" in such ways (e.g. on Poverty, on Drugs, on Crime, on malaria) blurs the meaning of a word that we should treat with utmost seriousness. Smearing the semantic field confuses our thinking (weak Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis). War justifies extraordinary measures, we are at war against (insert bogeyman here), therefore we can violate (insert lost right here) and otherwise operate without accountability.
In one of Arthur C. Clark's Rama books, the leaders of one race were required by law to commit suicide at the end of a war that they had declared. I like that idea.
>Personally, I think it's about time for a change of government, >although I don't want to see Afganistan's form of government here. >Laisez faire capitalism or just plain anarchy would be nice though.
To honor the victims of 9/11 we should do what we can to prevent more such tragedy, by asking why did it happen in the first place. The terrorists struck because they hate the US, and they hate the US not because of what it is or represents (contrary to whatever nonsense Bush says for the cameras) but because the US is meddling in the Middle East. If you poke a rabid dog enough times, it will bite you, civilian or not.
We libertarians often say that the ideal state would have the personal freedom of the Netherlands, the economic freedom of Hong Kong, and the neutrality of Switzerland. Such a state would not provoke such an attack.
>I'd even fight for that and risk my life and all.
Then consider joining us: http://www.FreeStateProject.org
Yes! The concept is called subsidiarity, making laws on the lowest possible level, first community, then city, state, and finally federal level. The two-phase evolution engine requires first variation and then selection: without variation, the result is stagnation. Of course, those who seek to impose their will through coercion rather than persuasion would prefer to do it at the highest possible level, preferably the UN, then Brussels or Washington....
I'll re-post this here since the leading subject line is more relevant:
There are mathematical ways of demonstrating that your little vote gives you minimal control over the output of the political machine, but James
Bovard puts it in blunt terms that anyone can understand: Voting is Overrated. Next week the article will be moved to Bovard's Archives.
A democracy fundamentally depends on an informed electorate to hold its representatives and public officials to account, but what if the electorate not only is uninformed, but is incapable of being sufficiently well informed to exercise control? Jeffrey Friedman of Harvard University argues that this is indeed the case: poll after poll shows that, on any given significant political issue, the majority of the American public is profoundly ignorant of the most basic relevant facts. This phenomenon is even more pronounced for women, who tend to be more unaware of national issues. The majority of Americans base their voting on non-factual criteria such as blind loyalty to party or social group, or to whether a candidate is sufficiently "caring", "trustworthy", or "presidential," and the oft-lamented spin-doctors and sound bites are an inevitable result. This is not to denigrate American citizens: since the 1930's, the politcal sphere has expanded tremendously, and is now beyond the ability of most educated people to fully understand. If the educational system cannot prepare citizens to control their government, the sphere of government must be reduced to be within their control.
You don't actually think that your vote, in today's political system, is relevant, do you?
There are mathematical ways of demonstrating that your little vote gives you minimal control over the output of the political machine, but James Bovard puts it in blunt terms that anyone can understand:
Voting is Overrated. Next week the article will be moved to
Bovard's Archives.
Slashdot Mirror
>Libertarians [lp.org] , on the other hand, are a bunch of independent SOBs
>who have trouble agreeing on enough issues to form a political party
Unlike the members of the two major parties, we agree on nearly all major political issues, but we get hung up in the principles, like how many objectivists can dance on the head of a pin. Since we tend to care more about principles and purity more than actual achievement of practical goals, we tend to get bogged down without making progress.
The Free State Project is a practical project that avoids detailed ideological discussions. Those are interesting, and they have their place, which is somewhere else.
"Utopianism" is a primitive but common epithet. Communism was utopian ("let's change human nature!"), but there is nothing utopian about wanting to reduce taxes, legalize drugs and prostitution, and adopt a neutral foreign policy. Those three things are already successfully in place in Singapore, The Netherlands, and Switzerland--nothing new or impractical about them.
Concretely, what form do you think the opposition would take? The US already admits vast(er) numbers of immigrants, and throughout history has had other much larger internal migrations (the Mormons, the Okies and Arkies, the black migration northward). My native California has seen an inward migration orders of magnitude greater than what we are planning, and yes, it significantly changed the political landscape. No worries, we can also vote with our feet.
See our FAQs. Someone did start an FTP, and we wish him well. However, since our numbers are growing astronomically (we were only at 300 at the beginning of August), we feel that we have a moderate approach that many people will feel comfortable with.
I am not going to waste a lot of time countering each of the above statements, which obviously will respond to swords like a hydra's head.
. html
i l/-/0674 808215/
/ -/0472 061003/
1 930865201/
>In fact, one would think that a simpler legal
>code would make it much easier to litigate,
Frequently new legislation (like the Civil Rights Act) create new openings for litigation.
>You complain that the US has such a complex legal system,
>yet the US has had the highest rate of economic growth in recent years.
Only in very recent years has the US had a *relatively* high rate of economic growth *in comparison with other industrialized nations*, which (e.g. Germany) coincidentally have even more legislation and regulation. US growth has not been the highest (e.g. Ireland's is higher) and the recent spike (now ended) was an exception to a very long-acting rule: US GDP growth had slowed to a fraction of what it used to be, strange, given the more rapid growth in technology. Even if it does rise again, that does not mean that it could not be higher, e.g. the enormous cost of regulation has been well documented
http://www.cato.org/research/reglt-st
>The SINGULAR difference, I'm sure, between the prison population in Russia
>and the one in the US is that 99.99999% of the Americans KNOW EXACTLY WHY they are in jail
I once violated the tax code, unknowingly, and got a hefty fine. Now I pay an expert, because the tax code is too complex, and the penalty for noncompliance too high. Is your "SINGULAR" difference somehow a sufficient condition for justice? Of course not. And, in fact, it is not a difference: Russians know just as well why they are in prison. Two weeks ago I was in a car in Moscow and we were stopped by three cops. They hassled one woman about her papers for nearly half an hour. She knew "EXACTLY WHY", but that did not make it just. Moscow has complex residency laws that many cannot comply with: the cops exploit that by taking bribes.
>NO OTHER COUNTRY on this earth are there such strong
>procedural safeguards put in place to protect people.
That was a very strange assertion, and telling. And false. The end result of your "strong procedural safeguards" is by far the highest level of 1) homicide, 2) incarceration, and 3) executions in the industrialized world. Isn't that a small hint that we should re-examine the rules, e.g. those against drugs?
Some references:
Richard Epstein, who is not merely a lawyer but a professor of law at the University of Chicago, wrote a book called "Simple Rules for a Complex World", published by Harvard University Press:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/deta
The introductory chapter is titled "Too Many Lawyers, Too Much Law". Epstein is highly respected, and coincidentally I just heard him interviewed a couple of days ago on the radio.
In "The Structure of Liberty", Prof. Randy Barnett also argues for a return from hyperlegislation to the traditional common law:
http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/TOC.htm
"The Calculus of Consent", by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, which won the former a Nobel prize in economics (by the way, another libertarian just won this year, bring the number to at least four that I know of):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail
"Government Failure", a more accessible textbook on the above Public Choice Theory recently appeared, again co-written by Tullock:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/
>because we could operate our society only on the Ten Commandments, no?
/ 0452268249/
Uh, no. Did I say that? Surely there is some happy medium between the Ten Commandments and our current legal code? Why do you attack such a straw man? The explosion in law and litigation occurred relatively recently; somehow our society had been able to get along without it--what happened?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN
>the reason that our legal system...is so complex is because
>we CAN'T operate our society only on the Ten Commandments.
I would disagree with that assertion (ignoring the silly Ten Commandments reference, and assuming that you mean "a relatively simple code"). With a little imagination you should be able to think of some alternative reasons why our legal system has become so complex, e.g. that Congress in the last several decades has been unchained to legislate in areas that had been denied it by the Constitution. Here is some food for thought:
http://www.overlawyered.com
I write you this from Moscow, which I first visited in 1986. The USSR was an example of a nation with complex laws that that *stifled* the society, to the point of collapse. You can't just state without proof that things as they are necessarily evolved that way for a good reason, whether you are talking about a person's metastasized cancer or our current complex laws. I live now in Germany, and I get the same crap from Germans: we need laws, we need order. If the stores were allowed to operate on Sundays, we would have chaos in the streets. Well, maybe with fewer laws Germany wouldn't have the lowest rate of economic growth in Europe.
>we CAN'T operate our society only on the Ten Commandments.
>Imagine the "injustice!", the "unfairness!" of a society like that.
The US recently overtook Russia as the nation with the highest per-capita prison population in the world. Imagine the "injustice!" and "unfairness!" of that. That so many people are defined as criminals suggests that maybe we should re-examine some of the laws.
I disagree with the tone of that comment for two reasons:
1. If a legal system, like a religion or a tax code, is so complex that only the high priests can understand it, then it is too complex. Simple rules are more likely to be read, understood, remembered, followed, and enforced, and at a lower cost. Our legal system is now a self-contradictory monster that frequently violates rights instead of enforcing them.
2. Despite their extensive educations, lawyers, like doctors and other arrogant initiates of the divine mysteries, frequently have significant holes in their understanding of the foundations of their discipline. I have recently been arguing with a lawyer friend at the International Criminal Court in The Hague about human rights, and it is clear that her understanding of the theoretical basis of why they are trying Milosevic & Co is less than complete. Sex tip for geeks: arguing such topics is *not* a good way to seduce a woman.
Good point. I guess do like Clinton: just don't inhale. Of course, drugs are expensive, so a display of civil disobedience would be a burden. I imagine that prostitutes would donate their time to such an effort, just don't
>Civil disobience has its place
Civil disobedience deserves a much bigger place in our society. It has a noble history with revered names like Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, and this moral authority should be used.
As a matter of principle, we should be using civil disobedience to protest all victimless "crimes". Civil disobedience is a coordination problem, doing little good if only one person practices it, so it requires advance agreement and commitment. Maybe we need an organization and web site to coordinate CD movements; there are unfortunately lots of opportunities.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1050
>Don't take offense to this, but you Libertarians are morons.
n d come back with some ammo.
If I took offense at every moron's comments, I would indeed be a moron. But if we do make you crazy, please facilitate our relocation to a single state so as to spare you further contact. Our feeling about people like you is mutual, and we wouldn't complain. One of the inescapable weaknesses of democracy is that everyone gets the right to vote, no matter how unworthy; I would be happy without you in my electorate.
>In case you hadn't noticed the Federal government isn't about
>to entertain the thought of 20,000 people making their own "state".
In case you hadn't noticed, that is not what we are doing. Critics of libertarianism are best at attacking strawmen. By the way, how do expect the USG to respond, with tanks?
>Your vaunted "freedoms" are just another word for "foolishly willfull anarchy."
The depth of your political theory would indeed make the Founders proud. If you want to critique libertarianism, go to
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
a
Our vaunted "freedoms" (um, why the quotes?) are nothing out of the ordinary, and found singly in various states and countries, and tested over time in the US. Libertarians want the personal freedoms of the Netherlands, the neutrality of Switzerland, and the economic freedom of Hong Kong--all demonstrably successful countries in their own way. Citing states, the legalized prostitution of Nevada, the taxes of the lowest taxing state, the "death with dignity" of Oregon, the school vouchers of Ohio, the right to bear arms of Maine, the homosexual marriage of Vermont, the legalized marijuana of...well, you're not quite there yet in the US; best to look to Europe for guidance on that one.
- taxation (since we tend to make above-average salaries, and are highly mobile)
- immigration (since immigrants are a major part of our industry)
Depends on how peripheral you want to get.I am a little surprised by all the off-topic verbage by and about foreign readers, as most of these same issues affect people in most countries. Given the historically high and increasing share of trade in our economies, and how much the US exports software and depends on IP protection for those exports, what furreners think does matter. Also, when a country sets sensible policies, it can attract skilled workers from less sensible countries; thus does the US lure workers from much of the world, and Ireland lures companies from the US. I am an American expat living in (privacy-obsessed) Germany, and I cannot wait to return to working in Russia, under a 13% flat tax!!
I'll come home to the US when the Free State Project hits 20K.
>Just like the whole "War on Terrorism" is
>pointless, so is a war on capitalism.
Worse, using "war" in such ways (e.g. on Poverty, on Drugs, on Crime, on malaria) blurs the meaning of a word that we should treat with utmost seriousness. Smearing the semantic field confuses our thinking (weak Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis). War justifies extraordinary measures, we are at war against (insert bogeyman here), therefore we can violate (insert lost right here) and otherwise operate without accountability.
In one of Arthur C. Clark's Rama books, the leaders of one race were required by law to commit suicide at the end of a war that they had declared. I like that idea.
>Personally, I think it's about time for a change of government,
>although I don't want to see Afganistan's form of government here.
>Laisez faire capitalism or just plain anarchy would be nice though.
To honor the victims of 9/11 we should do what we can to prevent more such tragedy, by asking why did it happen in the first place. The terrorists struck because they hate the US, and they hate the US not because of what it is or represents (contrary to whatever nonsense Bush says for the cameras) but because the US is meddling in the Middle East. If you poke a rabid dog enough times, it will bite you, civilian or not.
We libertarians often say that the ideal state would have the personal freedom of the Netherlands, the economic freedom of Hong Kong, and the neutrality of Switzerland. Such a state would not provoke such an attack.
>I'd even fight for that and risk my life and all.
Then consider joining us:
http://www.FreeStateProject.org
I'll re-post this here since the leading subject line is more relevant: There are mathematical ways of demonstrating that your little vote gives you minimal control over the output of the political machine, but James Bovard puts it in blunt terms that anyone can understand: Voting is Overrated. Next week the article will be moved to Bovard's Archives.
A democracy fundamentally depends on an informed electorate to hold its representatives and public officials to account, but what if the electorate not only is uninformed, but is incapable of being sufficiently well informed to exercise control? Jeffrey Friedman of Harvard University argues that this is indeed the case: poll after poll shows that, on any given significant political issue, the majority of the American public is profoundly ignorant of the most basic relevant facts. This phenomenon is even more pronounced for women, who tend to be more unaware of national issues. The majority of Americans base their voting on non-factual criteria such as blind loyalty to party or social group, or to whether a candidate is sufficiently "caring", "trustworthy", or "presidential," and the oft-lamented spin-doctors and sound bites are an inevitable result. This is not to denigrate American citizens: since the 1930's, the politcal sphere has expanded tremendously, and is now beyond the ability of most educated people to fully understand. If the educational system cannot prepare citizens to control their government, the sphere of government must be reduced to be within their control.
You don't actually think that your vote, in today's political system, is relevant, do you?
There are mathematical ways of demonstrating that your little vote gives you minimal control over the output of the political machine, but James Bovard puts it in blunt terms that anyone can understand: Voting is Overrated . Next week the article will be moved to Bovard's Archives.