Which is all well and good, apart from the fact that history has shown us that people, when left to their own devices, are absolute assholes to their fellow man.

Non aggression doesn't exist without a leviathan. Hell, even with a state monopoly on force, we are seeing powerful entities collude against the individual.

Just once, I'd like to see a libertarian video that actually addresses the very real practical problems with it's own philosophy without condescendingly dismissing the reasons why statism is the dominant model.

I'm more than willing to admit there are problems with the state having too much power (Snowden, etc), but this video fails to provide a credible alternative.

@ChaosEngine, I don't think you can assert that it's a "fact that history has shown us that people, when left to their own devices, are absolute assholes to their fellow man." People are generally good, I find.

And what problems exactly would you like to see libertarians actually address that they haven't already? And statism is the "dominant" model because it derives its powers by force. It wouldn't be dominant if it didn't force itself on the people.

I think Alan Moore has a decent take on this, too. From his wikipage: "I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy; after all, when you mention the idea of anarchy to most people they will tell you what a bad idea it is because the biggest gang would just take over. Which is pretty much how I see contemporary society. We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang has taken over and have declared that it is not an anarchist situation – that it is a capitalist or a communist situation. But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice."

@blankfist to address your points:

"People are generally good, I find." Individually, on a person to person basis, yeah, I'd agree. But once they are removed from personal interaction, then it becomes really easy to classify someone else as "other" and somehow less human. History is filled with examples of people doing this (do I really have to list them?). And that's just the normal people. History shows us that in general the strong will band together to oppress the weak. Now, you would probably argue that's exactly what "statism" is, but I would argue that government/law/policing protects more people than it harms.

The problems I'd like to see addressed are what happens when this idyllic utopia breaks down. What happens in the absence of a leviathan when someone robs or steals from you using force? How is that righted? What happens when a crime is perpetrated and there is no single victim, but the act is still damaging? Pollution, for instance.

As for Moore's (and I'm a big Moore fan) comment, it's really kind of disingenuous. The biggest gang was chosen by it's people. And if they start acting like dicks, then we choose another gang. Now whether one gang is as bad as the previous one is another debate, but even Moore's comment again doesn't address the genuine concern.

It actually describes a potential problem with anarchy, but it doesn't say how the problem would be solved, merely that he believes the problem already exists in our system today. Even accepting that on face value, how does anarchy make things better?

Shared this video with a friend. Here's his response:

"These simplistic ideas which are correct in principle are ideals which in practice require trusted third parties to apply, since all is subject to interpretation. The point of the Constitution was to create a government, of the people, by the people, and for the people. These principles, marvelous ideals, were to be embodied in the Constitution. This video suggests that apparently the government is somehow separate from the people, and exists on its own like a monarchy or a dictatorship. This is not correct. If it were, then there would be no need for the ruse of elections. China doesn't have this problem. The idealist fantasy in the video exists only in the mind of these people, not in the real world."

@ChaosEngine, I'm a big Moore fan, too. He's pretty great, isn't he? Curious what you thought of the Watchmen movie. And if you watched the Ultimate Cut or not. Now on to the more unpleasant stuff...


You wrote: "The problems I'd like to see addressed are what happens when this idyllic utopia breaks down. What happens in the absence of a leviathan when someone robs or steals from you using force? How is that righted? What happens when a crime is perpetrated and there is no single victim, but the act is still damaging? Pollution, for instance."

First off, I'm not sure small "l" libertarianism creates a utopia, idyllic or otherwise, It makes very little promises in that area, because the pragmatic argument is: freedom is dangerous. And libertarianism doesn't seek to create a perfect socially engineered society. It knows human problems are messy and complex, and there's no way to solve them from a monolithic, and often clumsy, top-down approach.

As for redressable damages (wrongs being righted), well, most small "l" libertarians still believe in civil courts and even administrative roles for government, believe it or not. Even Moore thought the government would work best in an administrative role, and he was a bonafide anarchist. This video is about the more extreme anarchist perspective of voluntaryism, which is a political philosophy of non-aggression, and couldn't be leapt into overnight. So, if someone pollutes your air, you have a grievance even in a libertarian society.


You wrote: "The biggest gang was chosen by it's people. And if they start acting like dicks, then we choose another gang. Now whether one gang is as bad as the previous one is another debate..."

Really? I could argue that the two party system holds our electorate system hostage, but let's just assume that's not true. Bush ran on a platform in 2001 that completely contradicted his policies while in office. So has Obama.


You wrote: "It actually describes a potential problem with anarchy, but it doesn't say how the problem would be solved..."

Right. Because anarchist aren't utopians. And small "l" libertarians don't want to replace a bad socially engineered political system with a new socially engineered political system. They really just want to leave it up to the people.

@blankfist, interesting thoughts. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but there's certainly some merit there.

@blankfist How does one originally appropriate that which was already appropriated?

The way your question is worded is throwing me. How does who exactly take what exactly from whom? And what do you mean by "originally appropriate" if something is already possessed?

@blankfist Okay... for example: suppose a wealthy family owned an entire island in the north sea. They choose voluntarily to allow people access to their land's resources in exchange for labor, but only at a very low level of compensation. They never parted with any land (that is, you had no option to be on the island without being on their land). Assuming you were born into this situation, were unwilling to agree to their terms, and were unable to leave the island, what freedom is left? How would one "reappropriate" that land without violating your second principle?

@bmacs27, first, that's a very specific scenario, and I think we can safely assume most, if not all, people wouldn't find themselves in this situation. Second, the island you describe doesn't sound like it fits any of the non-aggression principle's criteria, namely because it doesn't sound like people are allowed to leave. Therefore they're being coerced to stay, I assume. So, that sounds more like a governed society than a free one.

I'm sorry, that must be a miscommunication. It isn't that they are "forced" to stay on the island necessarily. It's that they lack the means to leave. That is, chopping down a tree to build a boat would be stealing, and they can't swim the distance necessary to get to any other dry land.

@bmacs27, it's still a very, very specific scenario. Essentially this is just another take on the old "Crazy Bill Gates" argument, which is, what if a crazy Bill Gates bought up all the land around your home and prevented you from crossing his land. Or what if a crazy Bill Gates hired an army and invaded your homes and made you slaves. Etc.

These kinds of specific "gotcha" scenarios always create questions, like, how did the island people get on this island? Are they native, and if so, why haven't they culminated the land yet before this crazy Bill Gates bought it up? And who did this crazy Bill Gates appropriate the island from and why did none of the stranded people own any of this land before he possessed it? How did Bill Gates claim the land? Why are these people stranded on an island suddenly overnight without ownership of anything? Did they not foresee the need for a boat before Bill Gates marched in and took the island? I just don't see such a specific scenario like this could every happen.

@blankfist Very strange indeed. How far do you suppose most people have to walk in order to "originally appropriate" land? How was land "originally appropriated" in the first place?

By conquest.

more taxation = theft BS. By living here you are agreeing to be taxed to pay for things we all need. Like that pesky police force we all agree is necessary to a just state.

if you live here, you agree with these terms, thus no theft. If you don't like taxation, get out.

yet again we have this hypocrisy. when we agree to the terms of a contract when dealing with private business, no one complains when a business holds you to your end of the bargain. but when gov't tries to collect taxes you agree to pay and tries to hold you to your end of the bargain, suddenly it's this horrible thing.

If you want something, you have to pay for it and Libertarianism is just a way of saying "I want to get away with doing something that I know harms people" or "I want something but I don't want to have to pay for it" wrapped in delusion of freedom.

people throw around the word freedom but in reality, as @ChaosEngine pointed out. you give people freedom and they use it to fuck over other people. We haven't evolved to the point where we can realiably count on people not to fuck each other over. Someday maybe that will happen, but it certainly isn't today.

Voluntaryism is just Objectiveism and Meritocracy trying to divorce itself from the negative stigma of Ayn Rand. rebranding a failed idea to get gullible people to fall for it again. Legitimized avarice.

boy I sure didn't miss blankfist's one note charlie obsession with statism.

Did the people who come up with these ideas completely ignore the lessons they learned when they first became adults? When we're growing up, we hated our parents for imposing rules on us, when we first become adults and we have a first taste of freedom, we go nuts, we do extremely stupid things, harmful things. most adults do eventually learn that these things are harmful and *shock* learn to impose limits on themselves. Eventually they come to realize that their parents weren't jerks after all and they generally did have a good reason to impose rules on us. Sure there some shitty parents out there and the children of those shitty parents throw out the rules that didn't work when they become adults, but guess what, they don't throw out the system, they just come up with different rules. hopefully those rules are better, if not, we just try again.

There is this false notion of an adversarial relation between gov't and the people. PEOPLE CREATED GOV'T!!! gov't is just the current method by which we impose limits on ourselves. just like we do as we grow up. Sure, we don't have a perfect system. get used to it. If gov't truly wasn't necessary, we would have ditched it a long time ago. someday we will have the ability to self limit ourselves without a self-created third party, but that isn't today.

Probably isn't ever going to change until we evolve genetic memory of our parents/ancestors or we develop a way to download knowledge/experience Matrix-style so that instead of learning the hard way to not touch a stove because it's hot, we just already know it at birth or an earlier age.