19 June 2007

Moved from MySpace - why libertarianism fails so far

03 Jun 2007, 00:00

Why libertarianism fails (so far)
Aktuelle Stimmung: working

Adam Knott has written a very interesting essay on the subject of libertarianism. My friends at the International Society for Individual Liberty have posted a copy here:
The Present State of Liberty

Among other things, Mr. Knott details:

He writes, "Contemporary libertarianism cannot succeed in its present form for three primary reasons:

"1. Much of contemporary libertarianism accepts the principle of political monopolism, a principle opposed to individual liberty."

Political monopolism covers a lot of ground. Among other things, one of the problems with the current political order is that if someone is elected, say, president, of the country in which you live, even if you didn't vote, that person claims to represent you. He doesn't actually represent you, because you have no agency contract with him. He lies about representing you. And, instead, what he does is he rules you. He does what he thinks best, and if you don't happen to agree, he ignores your wishes and does it anyway. In some instances, to the point of killing those who disagree with his policies.

Obviously, seizing control of the reigns of the state, as the Libertarian Party proposes, or as Ron Paul proposes, is "better than nothing" in the sense that having someone sensible holding the reigns of the state would be a good thing. But, it would not be the best thing. The best thing would be to give up this idiotic idea that a politician gets elected and actually has any contractual obligation to do the things he promised when he was campaigning. It would be best to stop demanding a system that imposes government on those who don't wish to vote. It would be best to stop accepting the idea that someone elected to represent you is doing so if you didn't vote for him.

Knott writes, "2. Contemporary libertarianism still thinks in terms of geographic government, while a geographic conception of government is incompatible with the principles of liberty."

It is stupid to demand that everyone in a given area be governed, will they or won't they, by the same gang. Geographic government is coercive. Fools who speak of secure borders and loss of national sovereignty should take a long hard look at their assumptions. You are wrong to demand that everyone in the same area speak the same language, follow the same religion, or pray to the same concept of government. It is you. You are at fault. You are in the wrong. Deny it if you must, but your denial does not resolve the problem.

You have no just power over others. You have no right to impose your will on others. You have many reasons not to do so. You are better off if you leave others more alone, and you are more likely to be left alone if you do so. You are better off with less government, and only such government as obtains the mutual consent of all those who are governed.

So, cut it out. The religious wars in Europe ought to have taught you stupid people a lesson. You ought to have realized that demanding an established church and listening to evil men demand that others obey their religious tenets is wrong. You ought to have learned not to kill other people for praying in a different manner. If you haven't learned these things, shame on you. Tens of millions of dead men and women's souls look upon your ignorance with sadness.

And, for exactly the same reason that it made no sense to kill people for engaging in acts of worship that were different from the demands of the established church, it makes no sense to demand that everyone obey the same government. It is time to let go of these idiotic ideas about compulsion. It doesn't work. It didn't make you a better child to be beaten with your father's belt. It only made you more careful not to attract his attention. If coercion failed to improve you, why is it good for everyone else? Why do you want a motherland that betrays you and beats you, or a fatherland that beats you and yells at you? Why not be an adult and lead your own life? Free yourself and take your own choices.

Finally, Knott notes, "3. Contemporary libertarianism does not know how to conceive of political change without voting, yet the principles underlying the act of voting are hostile to individual liberty."

Voting is madness. I've written extensively about that fact. If you think you are changing anything by voting, you are mistaken. If you think voting is the best way to choose anything, you are crazy. Voting is nuts.

Jetzt ansehen :
Lord of War (Widescreen)
Veröffentlichung: By 17 January, 2006

7:51 PM - 3 Kommentare - 4 Kudos - Kommentar hinzufügen - Bearbeiten - Löschen


I think a lot of people forget their history. I think more people should read "Animal Farm" where only one set of animals in the end could read the laws written. The laws were written to take control. The same is true today where we have so many laws no one person could possibly read and understand all of them. I forget the gentleman's name who did a film about it and he could not even print out all the laws. He also claimed that it would take a person 3 lifetimes to read all of them and that was only if the person was born able to read. I also believe things will have to get much worse before action is taken. Very sad.

Jen 4 Ron Paul '08!

Ok, so the answer is...make voting a binding contract? Whoever you vote for, they represent you, and you are under their jurisdiction? And for those who elect no gov can have no gov? Just playing...what you really mean is abolish it all...but that would be forcing everyone to be unruled...:-) Perhaps the communities should compete for the best structure/gov/setup...and see who moves there. None of this seems very likely. And I am only kidding...


To make voting a binding contract, one would also have to have a binding agency agreement with the politician to require their performance, and, given how untrustworthy they are, each candidate would have to post a large performance bond to be divided among the constituents when they screw them over. But, there are actual passages of the USA constitution and of the various state constitutions which specifically prevent politicians from ever being held accountable for things they say on the floor of the legislature, e.g., and in other ways being held accountable.

If you vote, I think you are saying that you consent to be governed, which, in my view, is a poor choice. However, according to those in government, even if you don't vote, you are under their jurisdiction.

What I really mean is govern yourself. Abolish nothing. Let others play their games their way. Some animals are more equal than others, as Tara notes. So, be one of the more equal animals by refusing to be governed by the other animals. But, don't take the step of governing others without their consent - that would be evil.

Good ribbing. Thanks.

Eintrag von von 09 Jun 2007, 11:08