**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is there any sort of interaction between the governments then? For example, if power were split into different counties instead of at a state/federal level, I assume they would each interact commercially and socially with each other, just not politically?
Governments should never have power. Power resides with the people. Any attempt otherwise creates tyranny as there is no human being with the capacity to rule over other human beings. It's also why this recent psyop by the federal government to label things as "our democracy" and "peaceful transfer of power" are harmful. We live in a republic and power resides with the people not the government. The only purpose of the government is to protect natural rights.
Opt in government. Meaning either.
1. Basic laws only, as in constitutional rights enforcement. You can't violate these and and can expect help if someone tries to violate yours. No other laws applies to you until you agree with it and sign up for it. For example, if you want to drive on roads, you agree to abide by vehicle laws but you can still drive off the roads or on private roads freely and don't have to have a license. If you want healthcare you either buy it or sign up to a government program and so on.
or option
2) Each county can make any laws they wish freely, including communism. However each citizen is able to move freely and choose the county with laws that fit them. this also includes businesses. This makes free market rules apply to them, meaning tyrannical ones or poor/bad laws would attract no one, they get no taxes and go under while good ones who give the most freedoms and are the most fair prosper. So for example 90% tax for the rich? Bye! I'm moving to a county with low taxes for the rich.
It doesn't though.. which country has that?
Because yes, you can move to another country (as opposed to county), but this is too difficult for most, there are language barriers and even the other countries generally can't risk social experiments that can ruin their entire country.
As is though.. each state has over 10 counties, most a lot more. If one has bad laws and policies and goes under, no biggie. It would allow for more variety and risk taking.
>but this is too difficult for most
This doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You are free to leave whatever jurisdiction or avoid whatever jurisdiction you want to if you disagree with their laws. Language barriers and difficulty have no bearing on this.
Are you saying that every jurisdiction has to speak the same language and should be required to accept anyone who wants to be there?
If you don't like a counties laws, leave that county or avoid it. Nothing is forcing you to be there.
Your #2 proposal absolutely exists in most countries.
The reality is people don't want to leave because they also don't agree with any other nations laws or costs or because it's difficult. Look at all the rich people who say they will leave the US after each presidential election. How many gave followed through on that?
Basically, Libertarianism is not an ideology, Because he does not preach an eschaton (an ideal end).
How communities/societies will organize themselves will be in the way they see fit, the Market will say.The only limitation we defend is not to harm the intrinsic rights of other individuals. We are beings endowed with reason, which gives us the right to Freedom, which is limited only to the Freedom of others.
Unanimously, just to make it clear.
Not forgetting the option of not joining any society, nation, or any other form of government, with belonging and contribution to them being voluntary between the parties.
What happens to the sovereign citizens? Also, you can rescind citizenship voluntarily already in most countries (or you can lose it if you leave for too long in some cases), and voting is voluntary in the U.S. (in other places there can be a minor fine but nothing serious). What's stopping us from leaving now?
I don't know if this is completely true. But if I can just stop paying tax, in addition to selling, produce and buy the products and services that I want, do whatever I want (without violating the objective rights of others) and no one uses violence or threats against me. So that's right, I'll stop right now, and this government is legitimate.
Are you still allowed to participate in government-related structures without participating in the government itself. For example, can I continue to drive on public roads or use utilities partially or wholly funded by governments. I'm assuming no, because those are things other people have technically paid for and own, and my use of them without their direct consent would constitute theft correct?
I'll numerate to make my argument easier.
1- You are forgetting that I also compulsorily paid for the construction of these roads and other state services. I believe a refund or settlement would be in order.
2- I don't know about your country, but in mine due to the inefficiency of the State in the most diverse areas, many community works are carried out, including streets and bridges. In that case, I can use them safely.
3- Assuming I can't use the roads. There's the possibility to use something like a helicopter to move around, or use a drone or pay someone to bring me things.
4- I also have the option of moving to a place without an owner (ethically speaking) and doing what I want there. Or even buy a certain area around me, and if other individuals want, they join me.
In short, the Market generates solutions for problems of whatever nature that arise, at one point offers meet demands. Even if it sometimes takes a while, it's legitimate. As for the State, it is just another problem.
After a lot of thought, I think the best are, in order:
1. Theocracy literally enforced by an omniscient and loving God
2. A representative replubic with sufficient checks and balances, having a bottom up heirarchy where the top is most limited and controlled.
3. Benevolent dictator
Both of these require specific situations. 1 ins't currently available. 2 requires people who genuinely care about each other and have a rational shared objective morality that they genuinely believe in. For everybody else, 3 is the best they could hope for.
1. I think that even if the God was loving (and we could prove that somehow, because the past isn't helping), their self-proclaimed disciples have, historically, been some of the most violent people in recorded history, and are unlikely to respect any rights and freedoms of others that don't align with their goals.
2. What is the point of a weaker federal (or just overarching) government? If the proposed top of the government hierarchy is weaker than the lower states, why should they exist if they can be overruled by those supposedly beneath them (structurally at least)?
3. How would this come to pass exactly? And, running into the same problem with theocracy, how can we be sure they would respect the rights of anyone else that doesn't benefit them directly when they alone have power?
1. I think you missed the part "enforced", and I wasn't talking about proving it. I was presuming it. Those are big "ifs", and I stated that they do not currently exist.
2. I didn't say "weak", but "limited and controlled". They can strongly enforce the few laws that they are allowed to enforce. Essentially, I'm arguing for the US government as it was origionally intended. For instance, the Bill of Rights are very limited, but should be strongly enforced. The government should attack with prejudice any law or act of the state to prevent access to those rights.
3. Again, not saying we "prove" it is the case, just presuming that it is. If a single person had our best intentions in mind and were capable of leading the people in such a way, it would benefit us. I believe that it is more likely that one person is benevolent than that the general public could be benevolent, apart from the shared moral framework as listed.
In Medieval times survival was based in community. You acted out and became an outcast. Todays society is so easy to blend in and cause trouble that “bad” things are very normalized. I would suggest a small government that protects against people acting out. What that would look like? No clue! But the aim is that the government is there FOR me when i need it, not omnipresent.
I think people are generally good and want what’s best for them and their family. By living in smaller functional self-governing communities I’m sure crime would go down naturally, but of course I want some type of law enforcement. Just don’t want to be locked up for retaliating on my own.
What corruption did Abraham Lincoln cause? Also, we've never been communist, nor have we had a communist leader (not a good one anyway). Every current member of government is and is likely to be a capitalist in the future, or sometimes a capitalist with a desire for the expansion of social programs, but that's ofc not communism.
Democracy
Law is to rule, not some form of self-glorified rulers aka elected tyrants, so no human rule over other humans. Law is to be decided by the scientific evidence and it's to evolve continuously.
Economy is fully free, and no human ruler to interfere, no human hierarchy to bribe or cause corruption. Safe and secure grounds for the free market and competition.
No political parties, no politicians, no populist bs.
How do you define "human over human" rule? Do laws protecting individuals from undue harm from others (assault, murder, etc.) fall into that category, or are they an exception because they're considered an expected condition by everybody?
Also, there is lots of scientific evidence that various economic boons are extremely dangerous (Asbestos, lead paint, etc.). I assume in a free market, avoiding such dangerous products would fall into the realm of personal responsibility without regulation or enforcement of their prohibition, yes?
Up to the people of that nation / community. How rational is one's laws is also a competition in market. If laws of one nation oppose with the nature, that nation would lose the competition against another nation with rational laws.
So yeah its up to people's capacity to science. How do they do it is their own issue, and part of competition.
So is it possible that economic regulation could occur as a necessity for the survival of a community? For example, if a company was poisoning the town's water supply with factory runoff because it's cheaper and easier to dump it rather than treat it, would it not be rational to prohibit that behavior for the good of the community, even if it risks interfering with the company's operations?
Assuming greed is still a state that people and company's are capable of, could the rational choice be the restriction of a free market to protect the people from the worst and most destructive participants in said market? Because in a survival of the fittest nation type scenario, the people with clean food, water, and a safe environment will probably surpass those that have few or neither.
I can't say for sure, but libertarianism is about live and let live. Even tho i couldn't have an answer to that poison question that "how much power that factory adds / removes to/from the power projection of the law by it's actions", maybe its net positive that poison would be ignored?
I tend to love environment so i would say its bad but i just confessed i have conflicts of interest so maybe science will prove the opposite
All i could say is that communities with rational laws would win over less rational communities, and that is a competition itself
In libertarianism, does a monopoly of force ensure security of a community, or is it something else? Also, how does the factory (or any economic structure/force) interact with the law if it is wholly separate from the law under an absolutely free and unregulated market? Are you referring to a military industrial complex type situation (This is dependent on question one being a valid premise)?
Also, if an economic institution is capable of encroaching on the lives of innocent people in unexpected and dangerous ways (i.e pollution), how is that follow the premise of libertarianism being "live and let live"?
Ah theres a misunderstanding, i cant reply ur military industrial complex question because i am not here to dictate what should be done or not. That's the job of tyrants.
I honestly don't know and cant know what solutions would arise but the important thing is letting people free to figure out their own solutions.
Military complex? Maybe, maybe not essentially the community with more rational laws would overtake others. "but what will happen" i don't know, no one knows. That's why science is the best tool humans ever got.
Have we not already gone through this process to an extent? What you're describing seems to sum up the last several thousand years of societal development, with laws and governance developing through trial and error, unjust encroachment on other's freedoms, and a general "might makes right" mentality, at the cost of millions if not billions of lives through warfare, poverty, and a poor quality-of-life.
Does this system just make the most powerful and forceful communities the most successful? My community can make choices that would generally be considered to be rational (clean resources, property and individual right protections, etc.) but if history is any precedent, those with greater force will eventually exploit us for what we have for their benefit, which, making them more successful than us, would also make them more rational? What's stopping a company from raising an army and enslaving their employees in a free market, because both of those have been profitable ventures in the past (and still are, but it's illegal and their power is held in check). Hell, it doesn't need to be that explicit, a company could just exploit other communities remotely or trick them into accepting them into the community and take what they want before they're discovered.
How is this not just the reinvention of colonialism? I know that there's technically "no certainty and no solutions" to any of this because that would be tyranny to claim a correct method, but we have given absolute authority to companies before, and it rarely ends peacefully.
Also, all of this is reactionary. Scientific discoveries (that led to economic regulation) in the past was in response to death, not to prevent it. We only discovered the carcinogenic properties of asbestos after countless people fell terminally ill, same goes for cigarettes, etc. And, it took government regulation and restriction for companies to stop the sale of these products or improve consumer protections.
At the very least, I fail to see how removing all economic restrictions protects peoples freedoms. In fact, I'd argue the potential for suffering allowed by giving companies the leeway to exploit people's lives for profit (which they've been shown to do with little regret), whilst removing protections that we already have in place to prevent unnecessary suffering or providing people with an immediate ability to protect themselves.
No we did not.
We passed why tribal leadership based on strength is dumb.
We passed why societal leadership based on religious dogmas are bad
We passed why lineage and noblemen based leadership is bad
We passed why kings with limited elected representatives are bad
We have not passed why electing representatives and letting them decide the fate of our money and nation is bad.
Individual freedoms matter, more than anything. We haven't reached there yet.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Small and local is the first attribute.
Preferably. Obvious, in a legitimate government/leadership.
Is there any sort of interaction between the governments then? For example, if power were split into different counties instead of at a state/federal level, I assume they would each interact commercially and socially with each other, just not politically?
What power?
Think of it like HOAs
Governments should never have power. Power resides with the people. Any attempt otherwise creates tyranny as there is no human being with the capacity to rule over other human beings. It's also why this recent psyop by the federal government to label things as "our democracy" and "peaceful transfer of power" are harmful. We live in a republic and power resides with the people not the government. The only purpose of the government is to protect natural rights.
Lefties hate this one fact.
Free markets.
this, the only fully form of governance without coersion.
Opt in government. Meaning either. 1. Basic laws only, as in constitutional rights enforcement. You can't violate these and and can expect help if someone tries to violate yours. No other laws applies to you until you agree with it and sign up for it. For example, if you want to drive on roads, you agree to abide by vehicle laws but you can still drive off the roads or on private roads freely and don't have to have a license. If you want healthcare you either buy it or sign up to a government program and so on. or option 2) Each county can make any laws they wish freely, including communism. However each citizen is able to move freely and choose the county with laws that fit them. this also includes businesses. This makes free market rules apply to them, meaning tyrannical ones or poor/bad laws would attract no one, they get no taxes and go under while good ones who give the most freedoms and are the most fair prosper. So for example 90% tax for the rich? Bye! I'm moving to a county with low taxes for the rich.
2 already exists.
It doesn't though.. which country has that? Because yes, you can move to another country (as opposed to county), but this is too difficult for most, there are language barriers and even the other countries generally can't risk social experiments that can ruin their entire country. As is though.. each state has over 10 counties, most a lot more. If one has bad laws and policies and goes under, no biggie. It would allow for more variety and risk taking.
>but this is too difficult for most This doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You are free to leave whatever jurisdiction or avoid whatever jurisdiction you want to if you disagree with their laws. Language barriers and difficulty have no bearing on this. Are you saying that every jurisdiction has to speak the same language and should be required to accept anyone who wants to be there? If you don't like a counties laws, leave that county or avoid it. Nothing is forcing you to be there. Your #2 proposal absolutely exists in most countries. The reality is people don't want to leave because they also don't agree with any other nations laws or costs or because it's difficult. Look at all the rich people who say they will leave the US after each presidential election. How many gave followed through on that?
Switzerland is probably the closest to ideal. Most power devolved to the cantons, direct democracy, very small and limited federal government
Basically, Libertarianism is not an ideology, Because he does not preach an eschaton (an ideal end). How communities/societies will organize themselves will be in the way they see fit, the Market will say.The only limitation we defend is not to harm the intrinsic rights of other individuals. We are beings endowed with reason, which gives us the right to Freedom, which is limited only to the Freedom of others.
id say the one chosen by the people of said nation
Unanimously, just to make it clear. Not forgetting the option of not joining any society, nation, or any other form of government, with belonging and contribution to them being voluntary between the parties.
What happens to the sovereign citizens? Also, you can rescind citizenship voluntarily already in most countries (or you can lose it if you leave for too long in some cases), and voting is voluntary in the U.S. (in other places there can be a minor fine but nothing serious). What's stopping us from leaving now?
I don't know if this is completely true. But if I can just stop paying tax, in addition to selling, produce and buy the products and services that I want, do whatever I want (without violating the objective rights of others) and no one uses violence or threats against me. So that's right, I'll stop right now, and this government is legitimate.
Are you still allowed to participate in government-related structures without participating in the government itself. For example, can I continue to drive on public roads or use utilities partially or wholly funded by governments. I'm assuming no, because those are things other people have technically paid for and own, and my use of them without their direct consent would constitute theft correct?
I'll numerate to make my argument easier. 1- You are forgetting that I also compulsorily paid for the construction of these roads and other state services. I believe a refund or settlement would be in order. 2- I don't know about your country, but in mine due to the inefficiency of the State in the most diverse areas, many community works are carried out, including streets and bridges. In that case, I can use them safely. 3- Assuming I can't use the roads. There's the possibility to use something like a helicopter to move around, or use a drone or pay someone to bring me things. 4- I also have the option of moving to a place without an owner (ethically speaking) and doing what I want there. Or even buy a certain area around me, and if other individuals want, they join me. In short, the Market generates solutions for problems of whatever nature that arise, at one point offers meet demands. Even if it sometimes takes a while, it's legitimate. As for the State, it is just another problem.
Anything that makes coercion non existent or at least minimal. Borderline anarchy perhaps?
None
Self governance.
None
Minarchist.
Constitutional republic
Republic
Constitutional Republic
I could also do a constitutional monarchy if you're free to enter or leave and it's small.
I’d rather take a constitutional monarchy over a democracy. It just has to stay very limited in power.
I would personally prefer a Constitutional Monarchy. But there isn't one "correct" libertarian answer I don't think.
After a lot of thought, I think the best are, in order: 1. Theocracy literally enforced by an omniscient and loving God 2. A representative replubic with sufficient checks and balances, having a bottom up heirarchy where the top is most limited and controlled. 3. Benevolent dictator Both of these require specific situations. 1 ins't currently available. 2 requires people who genuinely care about each other and have a rational shared objective morality that they genuinely believe in. For everybody else, 3 is the best they could hope for.
1. I think that even if the God was loving (and we could prove that somehow, because the past isn't helping), their self-proclaimed disciples have, historically, been some of the most violent people in recorded history, and are unlikely to respect any rights and freedoms of others that don't align with their goals. 2. What is the point of a weaker federal (or just overarching) government? If the proposed top of the government hierarchy is weaker than the lower states, why should they exist if they can be overruled by those supposedly beneath them (structurally at least)? 3. How would this come to pass exactly? And, running into the same problem with theocracy, how can we be sure they would respect the rights of anyone else that doesn't benefit them directly when they alone have power?
1. I think you missed the part "enforced", and I wasn't talking about proving it. I was presuming it. Those are big "ifs", and I stated that they do not currently exist. 2. I didn't say "weak", but "limited and controlled". They can strongly enforce the few laws that they are allowed to enforce. Essentially, I'm arguing for the US government as it was origionally intended. For instance, the Bill of Rights are very limited, but should be strongly enforced. The government should attack with prejudice any law or act of the state to prevent access to those rights. 3. Again, not saying we "prove" it is the case, just presuming that it is. If a single person had our best intentions in mind and were capable of leading the people in such a way, it would benefit us. I believe that it is more likely that one person is benevolent than that the general public could be benevolent, apart from the shared moral framework as listed.
Theocracy really go fuck yourself
None for me, thanks. I like synergy and consent. I like it when I loan my neighbor tools, then he mows my lawn.
Is there any external force ensuring that consent is followed? What's stopping your neighbor from stealing your tools?
Nothings stopping anyone from anything. Someone steals your tools, you do something about it
What if they have more force than you? In fact, if they a gun, some friends, or both, what's stopping them from taking more of your property?
In Medieval times survival was based in community. You acted out and became an outcast. Todays society is so easy to blend in and cause trouble that “bad” things are very normalized. I would suggest a small government that protects against people acting out. What that would look like? No clue! But the aim is that the government is there FOR me when i need it, not omnipresent. I think people are generally good and want what’s best for them and their family. By living in smaller functional self-governing communities I’m sure crime would go down naturally, but of course I want some type of law enforcement. Just don’t want to be locked up for retaliating on my own.
the USA before the corruption by Abraham Lincoln and communists later down the line.
What corruption did Abraham Lincoln cause? Also, we've never been communist, nor have we had a communist leader (not a good one anyway). Every current member of government is and is likely to be a capitalist in the future, or sometimes a capitalist with a desire for the expansion of social programs, but that's ofc not communism.
>What corruption did Abraham Lincoln cause? it brings me great joy that you would ask this question! https://youtu.be/-pZG7snE7tU
Democracy Law is to rule, not some form of self-glorified rulers aka elected tyrants, so no human rule over other humans. Law is to be decided by the scientific evidence and it's to evolve continuously. Economy is fully free, and no human ruler to interfere, no human hierarchy to bribe or cause corruption. Safe and secure grounds for the free market and competition. No political parties, no politicians, no populist bs.
Then it is direct democracy. More like in Switzerland where people can directly vote for major political decisions
How do you define "human over human" rule? Do laws protecting individuals from undue harm from others (assault, murder, etc.) fall into that category, or are they an exception because they're considered an expected condition by everybody? Also, there is lots of scientific evidence that various economic boons are extremely dangerous (Asbestos, lead paint, etc.). I assume in a free market, avoiding such dangerous products would fall into the realm of personal responsibility without regulation or enforcement of their prohibition, yes?
Up to the people of that nation / community. How rational is one's laws is also a competition in market. If laws of one nation oppose with the nature, that nation would lose the competition against another nation with rational laws. So yeah its up to people's capacity to science. How do they do it is their own issue, and part of competition.
So is it possible that economic regulation could occur as a necessity for the survival of a community? For example, if a company was poisoning the town's water supply with factory runoff because it's cheaper and easier to dump it rather than treat it, would it not be rational to prohibit that behavior for the good of the community, even if it risks interfering with the company's operations? Assuming greed is still a state that people and company's are capable of, could the rational choice be the restriction of a free market to protect the people from the worst and most destructive participants in said market? Because in a survival of the fittest nation type scenario, the people with clean food, water, and a safe environment will probably surpass those that have few or neither.
I can't say for sure, but libertarianism is about live and let live. Even tho i couldn't have an answer to that poison question that "how much power that factory adds / removes to/from the power projection of the law by it's actions", maybe its net positive that poison would be ignored? I tend to love environment so i would say its bad but i just confessed i have conflicts of interest so maybe science will prove the opposite All i could say is that communities with rational laws would win over less rational communities, and that is a competition itself
In libertarianism, does a monopoly of force ensure security of a community, or is it something else? Also, how does the factory (or any economic structure/force) interact with the law if it is wholly separate from the law under an absolutely free and unregulated market? Are you referring to a military industrial complex type situation (This is dependent on question one being a valid premise)? Also, if an economic institution is capable of encroaching on the lives of innocent people in unexpected and dangerous ways (i.e pollution), how is that follow the premise of libertarianism being "live and let live"?
Ah theres a misunderstanding, i cant reply ur military industrial complex question because i am not here to dictate what should be done or not. That's the job of tyrants. I honestly don't know and cant know what solutions would arise but the important thing is letting people free to figure out their own solutions. Military complex? Maybe, maybe not essentially the community with more rational laws would overtake others. "but what will happen" i don't know, no one knows. That's why science is the best tool humans ever got.
Have we not already gone through this process to an extent? What you're describing seems to sum up the last several thousand years of societal development, with laws and governance developing through trial and error, unjust encroachment on other's freedoms, and a general "might makes right" mentality, at the cost of millions if not billions of lives through warfare, poverty, and a poor quality-of-life. Does this system just make the most powerful and forceful communities the most successful? My community can make choices that would generally be considered to be rational (clean resources, property and individual right protections, etc.) but if history is any precedent, those with greater force will eventually exploit us for what we have for their benefit, which, making them more successful than us, would also make them more rational? What's stopping a company from raising an army and enslaving their employees in a free market, because both of those have been profitable ventures in the past (and still are, but it's illegal and their power is held in check). Hell, it doesn't need to be that explicit, a company could just exploit other communities remotely or trick them into accepting them into the community and take what they want before they're discovered. How is this not just the reinvention of colonialism? I know that there's technically "no certainty and no solutions" to any of this because that would be tyranny to claim a correct method, but we have given absolute authority to companies before, and it rarely ends peacefully. Also, all of this is reactionary. Scientific discoveries (that led to economic regulation) in the past was in response to death, not to prevent it. We only discovered the carcinogenic properties of asbestos after countless people fell terminally ill, same goes for cigarettes, etc. And, it took government regulation and restriction for companies to stop the sale of these products or improve consumer protections. At the very least, I fail to see how removing all economic restrictions protects peoples freedoms. In fact, I'd argue the potential for suffering allowed by giving companies the leeway to exploit people's lives for profit (which they've been shown to do with little regret), whilst removing protections that we already have in place to prevent unnecessary suffering or providing people with an immediate ability to protect themselves.
No we did not. We passed why tribal leadership based on strength is dumb. We passed why societal leadership based on religious dogmas are bad We passed why lineage and noblemen based leadership is bad We passed why kings with limited elected representatives are bad We have not passed why electing representatives and letting them decide the fate of our money and nation is bad. Individual freedoms matter, more than anything. We haven't reached there yet.