Libertarianism is the ideal on a theoretical level. It is what society should strive towards: maximum freedom for the individual with minimal government meddling.

The problem is that this form of rule only works in a civilization that is high-trust and highly aligned in its values.

You wouldn’t try to implement libertarianism in a place like Somalia. Nor would you try to revive El Salvador by being *more* lenient on criminals.

A certain amount of central authority is needed to maintain order, and thus create the conditions wherein peaceful, productive citizens may flourish and exercise their liberties.

While authoritarianism can certainly go too far, as we saw during COVID, a middle way is possible. England under British Common Law, and the USA in the gilded era, are excellent examples.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

“Libertarianism is like trying to stand a flagpole on its end: it’s not stable. You can’t just have liberty as a principle without authority, because liberty without authority devolves into chaos.”

— Curtis Yarvin

The only legitimate use of force is to establish and defend private property rights. This is libertarianism.

Agree. However, even by that principle, would a central authority not arise to establish and defend property rights?

I think that it would and that as you dlsaid before. Libertarianism is the ideal, it is a vector, not a destination.

It is a question if scale of central authority. IMO we have way too much of it now, but how small can we go before it becomes fragile? Hard to say.......bet definitely smaller😂

It may, but anything beyond defending property rights is an unjustifiable use of force. So it handcuffs what is justifiable to only include that which doesn’t violate our natural rights.

Could this happen without centralization? I suspect it could.

Bitcoin is a great example of an emerging voluntary system that is not centralized yet delivers a just system which naturally helps to protect individual liberty.

What is possible? I am not 100% sure. But I do believe that it is not moral or right to go any further than that with the use of force. The Non-Aggression Principle is valuable and the more it is esteemed in a society, the more chance it has to become the law.

Through greater consensus and striving for what is right, we can hope to put it to the test.

It starts by building enough of a consensus. We are much further than we were a decade or two ago.

I have a feeling that if Rothbard were with us today, he would be beyond excited to see where we are at today with Bitcoin, the propagation of the freedom movement, the peaceful subversion of the state, and the propagation of the ideas of liberty.

Where can this go? Let’s find out!

How to define and defend property rights of the public (negative externalities of individual contracts) in a libertarian society?

Give me an example of what you’re talking about and I’ll show you how the Non-Aggression Principle applies.

Environmental pollution (air, water).

Water use from a river.

Such are extensions of the NAP and involve property rights.

Network protocols as governance. doesn't matter what bits are being sent over the network. The protocol remains the same.

True. This works well in the digital world. But does it work in meatspace?

That graphic is kinda mainstream propaganda though 😅.

Libertarianism is close to the center of the spectrum. Anarchism is completely left out of the graphic - like always - which is a very mainstream symptom when it comes to the discussion about freedom 🙈...

Here is a better graphic, quickly put together in a text editor on my phone 😂 https://nostpic.com/media/caf0b76c5efcc2498bd77ab23c9a3f4c64b13f79a9cd7633ce08fd556f8c4a43/4316ae8fb33957cc6dc230bee0e261d0720533ff2a9da2e5e360038c647ebaf0.webp

This is a good graphic!

The problem is that the central authority inevitably has some value alignment of its own that it uses violence to enforce. What do smaller groups of different values do in that regime? More broadly encompassing central authorities should be weaker because it’s impossible to avoid having a diversity of values among citizens.

The only principle needed is the principle of voluntary exchange.

this

Being strong ;)

You will always have 2 two , kind of people, there is perfect living Society Model, that can face reality.

It is still essential to understand, that the Wohle live on the planet is fragile.

One asteroid can be enough, to stop the survival of a species.

I do think astronauts understand that and all this people are busy with unimportant things, would it. Ot be rational to secure the survival

Of the species, first ?