Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You're reversing the order of events. Agriculture comes prior to the state. We know this because there are many examples of agricultural societies without states (as you noted above). At some point, post-agriculture, you get state formation. The style of warfare typical of pre-agricultural societies persisted for a time. But eventually they realized that genocide wasn't strictly necessary, especially when the conquered people were not themselves agricultural. The new land and labor could support the additional population, and potentially many more. So statist conquest was a positive development relative to primitive genocide.

Yes state can impose their system on non-states. But it requires a state. There is a bootstrap problem. And you don't need to go to states to get governance, you have that with chiefdoms. So you really have to explain how you get chiefdoms. Now we have lots of examples of chiefdom formation by external stimulus. When Europeans first came to many places in Africa they would ask to see their chief, figuring there's always a chief. Often there wasn't a chief and so the Europeans would simply choose a family to be the representative and funnel their trade through that family. In a fairly short time the society would become a chiefdom with that family (now rich through trade) as the rulers. But the idea of chiefs was imposed from outside.

You have the same problem with every external agent theory. The agent to required to act as if they were already the kind of society that you are trying to form.

For example, it is not so simple to take an ungoverned people and make them slaves. It often doesn't work. Europeans who came to the New World and enslaved the native Caribbean population quickly discovered this; their slaves often died when they attempted the use the standard means to get them to behave like slaves, that is do work rather than whimper and cower like children. People obtained from more advanced societies in Central and South America made better slaves; Europeans still better and Africans the best.

This enslavement was done by peoples from long-established state societies who were experts in domineering others. Just how would unschooled egalitarian peoples manage to make slaves out of other egalitarian peoples--even if the idea did occur to them.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

For example, it is not so simple to take an ungoverned people and make them slaves. It often doesn't work. Europeans who came to the New World and enslaved the native Caribbean population quickly discovered this; their slaves often died when they attempted the use the standard means to get them to behave like slaves, that is do work rather than whimper and cower like children. People obtained from more advanced societies in Central and South America made better slaves; Europeans still better and Africans the best.

You make an interesting point. Definitely there is a difference in the mindset of people who have a history of statehood. I was trying to get at a mechanism for this by positing it as a variant of Stockholm Syndrome. Also, it seems that the slave mentality could develop over time and intensify from a mere imbalance of power into a full slave system over many generations.

My main counter to your "bootstrapping" problem is that I don't see how your theory solves it either. You seem to be saying that you can't have slaves until you have slaves.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

This is sort of true, except it misses the fact that no one actually pursued a policy of free trade. All of the European powers acted to monopolize their East Indies ports. A Dutch port was for Dutch merchants only. Similarly for the Portuguese and the English.

Colonial trading posts outside Europe were usually off limits to others. The goods available at trading posts were considered as a natural resource, like ore from a mine. Just as mines are owned so were trading posts. If you wanted to obtain goods like those produced by someone else's trading post, you had three choices (1) buy them on the open market in Europe (2) take the trading post by force or (3) establish your own trading post in an as yet undiscovered corner of the world. The stock boom that gave us the word "bubble" concerned an English company that had been set up to do #3 in Australia. Australia would not be discovered for another 50 years, but they had already named the vast fertile land that they knew must be there somewhere in the vast South Seas.

In defense, yes. Not as an aggressor.

How is this relevant? I am not talking about morality here. In a world of private interests, some of them are going to be aggressors if it serves their purpose. You have this idea that in a world of private interests all competing with each other, that differences in wealth/power just won't happen when in the real world differences do arise. Once you have differences in power some will exploit those differences to augment their power using whatever means work. If there isn't a suitable government to use as a tool, they can create one as the Dutch and American elites did after their revolutions. If violence can get them what they want faster, they will use it, just as did the VOC, English privateers, and other ambitious folk.

So even if you used a magic wand to create a world of small firms competing in a free market with no government, there is no real world evidence that argues that the unequal world of competing power centers dominating everything won't return. And since in the real world there is no magic wand the idea is even more unrealistic.

My principle beef with libertarians is they always target the government first. Even those who agree that private concentrations of power are a problem the focus on smaller government. Why not first eliminate corporate limited liability as a means to reduce corporate power?

The politically practical policies that self-described 1970's libertarians called for and which were actually implemented in the 1980's and 1990's were policies that enhanced the wealth and power of a few over the many (e.g. capital gains tax cuts, which encouraged bubble formation, enriching the few at the expense of the many).

The VOC controlled all trade in Dutch ports. What had been a diverse collection of Dutch merchants were now a series of subcontractors playing by the VOCs rules.

Do you mean ports in the Netherlands or in the colonies? If the former can you give me a url for that?

To make the argument that the VOC is a likely model for what sorts of firms would arise in a libertarian society, you would have to demonstrate that the environment of 17th century trade approximates what I advocate.

Do you have a real world capitalistic model that is closer than 17th century Netherlands? If so, please provide it and we can discuss that. You make your arguments entirely from a theoretical view. It would be useful if there were some examples in the real world of something that approximates what you are talking about. Having none raises a lot of question about whether or not the notions you advocate are realistic.

Part of your confusion here is an assumption that a free market advocate must be pining for some better, vanished time when economic life was more free.

No. See above.

Actually, I'm taking the opposite view -- that the government/private sphere dichotomy is illusory even in the modern era.

Then why the emphasis on government if they are the same as private concerns.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You make an interesting point. Definitely there is a difference in the mindset of people who have a history of statehood. I was trying to get at a mechanism for this by positing it as a variant of Stockholm Syndrome. Also, it seems that the slave mentality could develop over time and intensify from a mere imbalance of power into a full slave system over many generations.

My main counter to your "bootstrapping" problem is that I don't see how your theory solves it either. You seem to be saying that you can't have slaves until you have slaves.

I don't have a theory for that. This is what makes the boot straping problem a problem.

And now I have to backtrack further. I did some research on levels of social organization and found I misremembered some details.

Tribes are not different from bands because they have a hereditary leader. Chiefdoms have the hereditary leader, tribes don't. They still have informal leaders with no differentiation of work. Leaders farm their plots and craft items just like everyone else.

Tribes are different from bands in terms of size (a tribe can have anywhere from a 100 to a few thousand people, compared to a few dozen to about 100 in a band). Being much larger tribes do have stability management problems not present in bands, but they do not use governance (in the sense I was using it) as the means of performing this management. They use secret societies (I had forgotten about secret societies).

So in other words, essentially egalitarian, ungoverned groups as large as a few thousand can exist, using self-organizing voluntary associations (secret societies) as a tool for cohesion.

What separate chiefdoms from tribes is not size (chiefdoms can be smaller than tribes as well as larger) but the existence of ranked societies (some secret societies have more status than others) with a chief at the head of the highest status society. They are not quite social classes, as material conditions are still pretty egalitarian. Chiefdoms practice a more intensive form of agriculture and produce surpluses. Sometimes a chief can employ surpluses to build monumental architecture (this is clear evidence of governance). Chiefdoms often engage in trade, which is sometimes run through the chief and his family or society, which gives the chief extra wealth, which he is expected to share with the entire community. Such "gifts" to everyone help establish the greatness of the chief on the eyes of the community, making him a really big man.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How is this relevant? I am not talking about morality here.

I think morality has direct relevance on when the use of force is acceptable, which is the particular issue you raised.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

In a world of private interests, some of them are going to be aggressors if it serves their purpose.

The existence of evil, even if a permanent facet of the human condition, does not mean that morality is irrelevant and that we can't make distinctions based on whether a social relation is just or not. Obviously justice is a concern of social organization, so it doesn't make any sense to discuss social organization in an amoral context.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My principle beef with libertarians is they always target the government first. Even those who agree that private concentrations of power are a problem the focus on smaller government. Why not first eliminate corporate limited liability as a means to reduce corporate power?

Sure, why not? I think you're making assumptions about my priorities which are not in evidence. The only reason the state has particular focus for libertarians is because the state is the only institution that is consistently deemed legitimate when it engages in unjust behavior. People tolerate behavior from states that they never tolerate from corporations.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Do you mean ports in the Netherlands or in the colonies? If the former can you give me a url for that?

I meant the latter.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Do you have a real world capitalistic model that is closer than 17th century Netherlands?

Are you asking for a better example of a free market society? That's easy. Almost every country on Earth today has a more liberal trade regime than the Dutch Republic did.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You make your arguments entirely from a theoretical view. It would be useful if there were some examples in the real world of something that approximates what you are talking about. Having none raises a lot of question about whether or not the notions you advocate are realistic.

This is always hard when you're advocating major social change rather than modest reform. This is the problem with pure empiricism -- you couldn't have made an argument against slavery or against established religion or against monarchy by using examples, either. What few examples existed, were muddled in with the prevailing societies that possessed those noxious institutions. At some point you do need a theory of justice and how one should go about creating a more just society.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't have a theory for that. This is what makes the boot straping problem a problem.

I think you need a counter-proposal at this point. I've already laid out a plausible progression from loss in a war, magnanimity by the victors, perceived charity from the victors and perceived inferiority of the losers eventually developing into full class societies. Not all the steps are clearly in evidence, but at some point, like a paleontologist fending off the "transitional fossil" argument from creationists, you just have to say: "Everything else fits, you got a better idea?"

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What separate chiefdoms from tribes is not size (chiefdoms can be smaller than tribes as well as larger) but the existence of ranked societies (some secret societies have more status than others) with a chief at the head of the highest status society.

Which seems pretty close to our transitional society between tribe and state. It is notable that there is no clear size boundary between tribe and chiefdom. It could be useful to find out where smaller chiefdoms emerged and why. In other words, some societies started moving towards the state at a lower level of population than others. Why?

If the state confers organizational benefits then we should expect the smaller chiefdoms to have been more technologically advanced. If the state is a protection racket, then we should probably see smaller chiefdoms in areas where population density was higher. I know that there is definitely a correlation between density and state formation. So it seems the state is a product of violent competition over existing resources rather than an organizational complexity adopted for creating new resources.

Given this origin, the conception of the state creating a foundation on which society is constructed is not a tenable position. The state is simply one social institution among many. It's dominance is not due to force, but due to acceptance of its use of force.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You make an interesting point. Definitely there is a difference in the mindset of people who have a history of statehood. I was trying to get at a mechanism for this by positing it as a variant of Stockholm Syndrome. Also, it seems that the slave mentality could develop over time and intensify from a mere imbalance of power into a full slave system over many generations.

My main counter to your "bootstrapping" problem is that I don't see how your theory solves it either. You seem to be saying that you can't have slaves until you have slaves.

Let's say you can't have slaves until you have peasants. I wouldn't try to enslave someone from a foraging society any more than I'd try to tame a mountain lion. But someone used to working in the fields for subsistence? Them you can get to work for you; they're used to it already.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My principle beef with libertarians is they always target the government first. Even those who agree that private concentrations of power are a problem the focus on smaller government. Why not first eliminate corporate limited liability as a means to reduce corporate power?

What libertarians are you talking about? Most all the ones I know would be good with that plan (after boring you to death by pointing out that attacking 'limited liability' in fact consitutes a an attack on the government, since the group primarily benefiting from that particular privelege is the ruling class.)

You seem to see fill in blanks with contradictions and then spend a lot of time criticizing those when it comes to discussing libertarianism. I hope these discussios are helping you replace your assumptions with more accurate data.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Which seems pretty close to our transitional society between tribe and state.

I don't get the impression that states came from tribes. States seem to have come from large chiefdoms, which already have governance and a number of ideas. Your conquest idea is a plausible mechanism for how a chiefdom could be made into a state.

I don't think it would apply to a large tribe, and small tribe is too small to be transfomred into a state.

Large tribes don't seem to have have fought large scale wars. Catal Hoyuk was a large tribe that had no defensive works desinged to thwart conquest. It was designed to have some defensive properties against raiders and small scale attacks, but nothing to counter large scale attacks from a determined enemy.

On the other hand, smaller tribe settlements like Jericho show fortifications at early times (ca 7000 BC) and larger ones lin later periods (5000's BC) start to show fortifications. By this time there were numerous chiefdoms in Mesoptamia (and I assume in Anatolia) that is, governance had already appearred.

It is notable that there is no clear size boundary between tribe and chiefdom. It could be useful to find out where smaller chiefdoms emerged and why. In other words, some societies started moving towards the state at a lower level of population than others. Why?

A chiefdom can be formed by simple contact with a more advanced society, I gave an examples from European contact with tribal peoples in Africa and elsewhere. I suspect small chiefdoms were "seeded" in this way. Once the state arose in Iraq, the idea spread to Eqypt and a state quickly developed. What had taken millennia to happen in Iraq happened in a few centuries in Egypt.

If the state confers organizational benefits then we should expect the smaller chiefdoms to have been more technologically advanced.

No they would be more organizationally advanced, and they were. For example chiefdoms produced agricultural surpluses, which allow a fraction of the tribe to do something else beside farm (like build fortifcations or monumental architecture).

There is no way for a tribe to do any sort of large scale project. At Catal Hoyuk, there was defense obtained by the simple practice of building individual houses adjacent with entrances on the roof. This gives you a "wall effect" for free. No need to organize a major project to build a wall around the town.

If the state is a protection racket, then we should probably see smaller chiefdoms in areas where population density was higher.

Why? It seems to be that in more populous regions chiefdoms would absorb other chiedoms and tribes becoming bigger until they reached thier upper limit in size.

I know that there is definitely a correlation between density and state formation. So it seems the state is a product of violent competition over existing resources rather than an organizational complexity adopted for creating new resources.

I never said governance was an organizational complexity adopted for creating new resources. Where did you get that idea? I said governance was a way to organize societies so they don't collapse in civil violence as they get bigger.

When population became so dense that even the chiefdom mode of organization could not prevent continuous warfare, the state was invented. This happened only in a few places, all of which featured dense populations living a physically constrained region. In unconstrained areas, if a chiefdom got too big, a subgroup could break off and set up shop eslewhere. When you were surrounded by desert or other peoples, there was no where for your group to set up shop and you had to duke it out.

The state arose when a means to produce a stable society larger than a big chiefdom appearred. It was probably something like your conquest model. A chiefdom would grow large, a group would break off and now there would be two chiefdoms. Since there was nowhere to go they chiefdoms fought, and the violence solved the probllem of overpopulation.

Then some chiefdom came up with a ritual or device by which they could induct another group into their group at a lower status. Since chiefdoms already have ritualistic secret societies with differential status, the new comers could belong to a new secret society with even lower status and who performed a different type of ritual, perhaps something along the lines of kissing the ass of their betters.

The choice faced by the losers of a war would be to fight to the death or become Ass-Kissers. Some would fight to the death rather than Kiss Ass, others woud decide they could learn to Kiss Ass. Note that the Ass Kissers still lived material lives no different from everyone else. They lived in the same size houses and farmed just like everyone else. They simply played the role of the fool, the butt of jokes, in rituals and social intereactions, sort of the like the nerds versus jocks in high school. After their own asses had been kicked, they chose to kiss ass over death. The children of ass kissers grew up seeing family members who had authority over them kissing ass and so learned to be ass kissers.

Over time economic/political roles were be added to ritualitstic roles, creating classes out of secret societies. This is the division of labor, which is a characteristic of states. The top society would get a governing role, that is, they would be professional big men.

Those who kissed ass would naturally expect to get the least appealing roles and they did. New entrants into the society (via conquest) would automatically be consigned to the lowest society/class.

In this system the ruling elite's position is not (initially) supported by the elite's power (which is actually quite small), but by the non-elite who see the creation of a new category of people with lower status than them as a positive thing. This increase in status of the lowest-ranking people of the present society is a benefit that helps provide support for the elite's conquest program. Thus, Joe Schmoe is incented to support acitivies that confer power on those higher up than him because these activities create someone lower than Joe. Joe becomes a bigger man, with a side effect of the leaders becoming bigger men. The process continues until those at the top become divine, e.g. the pharoh.

Once the top dude is God he now has the power usually associated with the state.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What libertarians are you talking about? Most all the ones I know would be good with that plan (after boring you to death by pointing out that attacking 'limited liability' in fact consitutes a an attack on the government, since the group primarily benefiting from that particular privelege is the ruling class.)

You seem to see fill in blanks with contradictions and then spend a lot of time criticizing those when it comes to discussing libertarianism. I hope these discussios are helping you replace your assumptions with more accurate data.

It seems to be that getting rid of limited liability would be one of the first things libertarians concerned about coporate power would have gone for duirng the Reagan revolution.

The policies (e.g. Reaganomics) that people who call themselves libertarian (e.g. Cato Insitute) supported and defend did not include getting rid of limited liability (I don't recall that even being discussed in the 1980's). I have seen self-described libertarians questioning their alliance with the Right, which to me implies that one did exist in the 1980's and that it went beyond just the Cato Institute. So I believe it is not unfair to consider liberterians as supporters of the Reagan revolution, even though it never addressed limited liability or corporate power at all.

If the Soviet Union a real world example of Marxism, then the policies endorsed by Cato Institute is one for libertarianism.

I also don't think that Libertarian theoretical models have much empirical support, and hence don't believe them.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It seems to be that getting rid of limited liability would be one of the first things libertarians concerned about coporate power would have gone for during the Reagan revolution.

The policies (e.g. Reaganomics) that people who call themselves libertarian (e.g. Cato Insitute) supported and defend did not include getting rid of limited liability (I don't recall that even being discussed in the 1980's). I have seen self-described libertarians questioning their alliance with the Right, which to me implies that one did exist in the 1980's and that it went beyond just the Cato Institute. So I believe it is not unfair to consider liberterians as supporters of the Reagan revolution, even though it never addressed limited liability or corporate power at all.

If the Soviet Union a real world example of Marxism, then the policies endorsed by Cato Institute is one for libertarianism.

Libertarianism as it was in the 80s, sure. But the 80s are a long-dead decade. The philosophy has been greatly refined since then -- with the reagan years providing no small amount of data on which to refine. Arguing against libertarianism-of-the-80s is so not-valid that it approaches strawmanning.

A nice thing about the fact that libertarianism is defined by a philosophy, rather than an agenda, is that as more information is available, the agenda can be adjusted to ever-increasing accord with reality.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Libertarianism as it was in the 80s, sure. But the 80s are a long-dead decade. The philosophy has been greatly refined since then -- with the reagan years providing no small amount of data on which to refine. Arguing against libertarianism-of-the-80s is so not-valid that it approaches strawmanning.

They same thing can be said about Marxism and the Soviet Union. Do you think that arguing against Marxism based on Marxism in the Soviet Union is strawmanning?

In purpose, theoetical Marxism is the same as the theoretical libertarianism you and Kurt appear to profer. Both are attempts to address alienation. Both see government as the servant of private elites. Both feature an absense of government as their end state. Both see egalitariainism as a desirable property (although to different degrees).

And the way you address criticism is the same. Marxists would reject the Soviet Union, just as you are rejecting 1980's libertarianism. But the fact remains that the 1917 revolution and the Reagan revolution were attempts to put their respective theories into practice.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

They same thing can be said about Marxism and the Soviet Union. Do you think that arguing against Marxism based on Marxism in the Soviet Union is strawmanning?

Well, considering that Marxism began and ended with the USSR, it's fair to equate the two. Libertarianism, on the other hand, far predates, and extends far beyond the 'reaganism' period. Apples and coconuts.

Libertarianism briefly fell into step with reaganism -- based primarily on a correspondence of rhetoric (not actual policy or fundamentals). In equating the two, what you are doing is more like equating 'democracy' with 'Atheniesm'.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

They same thing can be said about Marxism and the Soviet Union. Do you think that arguing against Marxism based on Marxism in the Soviet Union is strawmanning?

In purpose, theoetical Marxism is the same as the theoretical libertarianism you and Kurt appear to profer. Both are attempts to address alienation. Both see government as the servant of private elites. Both feature an absense of government as their end state. Both see egalitariainism as a desirable property (although to different degrees).

And the way you address criticism is the same. Marxists would reject the Soviet Union, just as you are rejecting 1980's libertarianism. But the fact remains that the 1917 revolution and the Reagan revolution were attempts to put their respective theories into practice.

What libertarian theory did the Reagan revolution attempt to put into practice? A watered-down, top-down, inconsistent application of 'libertarian theory' within an authoritarian structure? It doesn't appear to be particularly libertarian at all, and is actually pretty close to the opposite of the version of libertarianism I advocate.

At least Lenin et al. made an honest attempt to try to institute Marxism, even if it didn't really match Marx's ideas.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

A watered-down, top-down, inconsistent application of 'libertarian theory' within an authoritarian structure? It doesn't appear to be particularly libertarian at all, and is actually pretty close to the opposite of the version of libertarianism I advocate

Mike seems to be granting more credence to form and less to substance than either really deserves. Of course, he displays only the shallowest of exposures to actual libertarianism, so he can't be faulted for falling back on the superficial -- it is, after all, the easiest to see. And we must make assumptions about what we have not observed if we are to operate at all.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Well, considering that Marxism began and ended with the USSR, it's fair to equate the two.

Huh? What are you talking about? Marxism is a philosophy and a social theory, not unlike like Libertarianism. It began in 1844 and continues to this day.

Marxist thought was used for more than a century by labor activists, socialists and anarchists to help shape their thinking about economic issues. Similarly, libertarian thought has been used by American conservatives to shape their economic thinking.

The Soviet Union was the first application of Marxist social theory to construct a new society. No such attempt has (yet) been made with libertarian social theory. It seems to me that you and Kurt would welcome such an attempt.

The most that has been attempted using libertarian social theory has been some fine tuning, e.g. Reaganism. What Reagan and Bush attempted was far, far less sweeping than what Lenin and Stalin attempted, and the results have been proportionally less severe.

If it is fair to equate Marxism with the Soviet Union, then it is fair to equate Libertarianism with Reagan-Bush.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

What libertarian theory did the Reagan revolution attempt to put into practice? A watered-down, top-down, inconsistent application of 'libertarian theory' within an authoritarian structure? It doesn't appear to be particularly libertarian at all, and is actually pretty close to the opposite of the version of libertarianism I advocate.

They didn't. Nobody has ever tried to do with libertarianism what Lenin tried to do with Marxism. What has been done with both is to use aspects of the theory to develop justifications for desired policy. For example, 19th century labor theorists used Marxist concepts to explain why unionization was both just and necessary for the working man. Remember unionization was illegal in those days, it was considered wrong by many people.

Libertarianism gave theoretical cover to what Reagan was trying to achieve in the same way as Marxist labor theory did for unions. In the link I show that Reagan explicitly labeled himself as libertarian, and libertarians were generally supportive of Reaganism.

In doing so they entangled how their theories would be viewed with the causes they were supporting it. If labor unions came to be seen as a evil mistake, this would adversely affect how Marxism would be viewed. The same would be true for Reaganism.

Of course the later appearance of the Soviet Union created a much more prominent example of Marxist theory in action than labor unions and so how the Soviet Union (as opposed to labor unions) has come to be viewed has impacted people's view of Marxism.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Mike seems to be granting more credence to form and less to substance than either really deserves. Of course, he displays only the shallowest of exposures to actual libertarianism, so he can't be faulted for falling back on the superficial -- it is, after all, the easiest to see. And we must make assumptions about what we have not observed if we are to operate at all.

Having lived in Russia, you have had a lot of exposure to sentiments about the largest application of Marxist philosophy. It is understandable that you equate the application with the theory. This is exactly what I did in arguments with Marxists 20-30 years ago and am doing today with libertarianism. I am an empiricist, and I had the same problem with Marxists as I have with Libertarians.

But what I am doing with libertarianism is no different that what you do with to Marxism.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The most that has been attempted using libertarian social theory has been some fine tuning, e.g. Reaganism. What Reagan and Bush attempted was far, far less sweeping than what Lenin and Stalin attempted, and the results have been proportionally less severe.

Please. I've made better attempts at applying and using libertarian social theory at my school this past year than Reagan did in two terms.

If it is fair to equate Marxism with the Soviet Union, then it is fair to equate Libertarianism with Reagan-Bush.

What do you mean by equate? I think it's fair to criticize Marxism by pointing to the Soviet Union and saying "Gee! Authoritarianism and dictatorship ain't worth it Marx!" but it doesn't make much sense to point to Reagan-Bush and say "Libertarianism just is a scheme to benefit the rich and powerful!" Like it or not, Reagan didn't apply libertarian social theory; or rather, the places where it was applied (like some tax cuts, but that's only ambiguously libertarian) were drowned out by his more consequential authoritarian policies. It's true that a fair number of "libertarians" like to praise Reagan as chairman of the libertarian revolution, but who takes Reagan-lovers seriously anyway? I certainly don't, and when they claim Reagan was actually a libertarian I tend to back away slowly...

Originally Posted by Mikebert

They didn't. Nobody has ever tried to do with libertarianism what Lenin tried to do with Marxism. What has been done with both is to use aspects of the theory to develop justifications for desired policy. For example, 19th century labor theorists used Marxist concepts to explain why unionization was both just and necessary for the working man. Remember unionization was illegal in those days, it was considered wrong by many people.

Libertarianism gave theoretical cover to what Reagan was trying to achieve in the same way as Marxist labor theory did for unions. In the link I show that Reagan explicitly labeled himself as libertarian, and libertarians were generally supportive of Reaganism.

OK, so what? If someone was a libertarian that was supportive of Reagan then they were hardly a libertarian at all. Personally, I don't really care if putative libertarians supported Reagan in his fusionistic quest. It's an embarrassment to real libertarians, sure, but I self-identify as an anarchist first, anyway, and tend to associate politically with other radicals.

I am an empiricist, and I had the same problem with Marxists as I have with Libertarians.

What does that have to do with being an empiricist? Are you suggesting that we cannot fully understand how libertarianism works without seeing liberty in action? I'm not entirely sure how that is unique to empiricists.

What does that have to do with being an empiricist? Are you suggesting that we cannot fully understand how libertarianism works without seeing liberty in action?

Yes

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Please. I've made better attempts at applying and using libertarian social theory at my school this past year than Reagan did in two terms.

How did you apply it. What did you do?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes

[...]

How did you apply it. What did you do?

Well I don't think that's necessarily an empiricist viewpoint, and I think the notion that libertarianism is all abstract theory without any experiential grounds is a bit of a red herring. Although helpful, we don't have to look at places like medieval Iceland, primitive society, syndicalist Spain, the Old West, or modern-day Somalia for examples of libertarian theory at work, it's right there in front of us. Justin makes a good point when he brings up our daily lives as providing solid evidence for a what libertarian/anarchist society might look like; most of the time we get on OK without any thought of unlibertarian laws, direct state interference in our lives, etc. You're right that it's difficult to nail the specifics, but when you confront the basic statist objections (e.g., society will collapse, there will be chaos, profit will rule, and so on), they don't seem to match that common sense understanding of how society works. Remove the State and you will undoubtedly see a lot of changes, but with the regulators of the market being the people themselves, it's quite difficult to imagine order falling apart when it's in everyone's best interest to maintain a positive order.

Naturally, there is a little risk involved in the proposition. We can't point to any past society and say "This is how it will be," because we really don't know what things are going to look like, or how things are going to play out. Some examples of libertarian superstructure worked better than others, for various reasons -- most of them cultural. But I find the problems with the State's existence to be far more abhorrent than the possibility that things might not go as planned when supplanting the government's role in society with voluntary associations. At the very worst, the downside is not nearly as severe nor as prolonged as that of State Socialism. And at the very best, well...

Since you asked, I'm involved in (and have been involved with) various projects such as organizing a campus CopWatch, small-scale mutual aid projects (not atypical gift economy type stuff + volunteering), radical publications and meetings, other black markets (usually copyrighted media sources) and underground economy-things, etc. (there's more, but I'm too tired to think right now). And although I'm somewhat of a pluralist, I mostly try to act in ways that I feel are consistently libertarian and promote freedom for all, be they cultural politics (e.g., hence my commitment to feminism) or one-on-one interaction with peers.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Naturally, there is a little risk involved in the proposition. We can't point to any past society and say "This is how it will be," because we really don't know what things are going to look like, or how things are going to play out. Some examples of libertarian superstructure worked better than others, for various reasons -- most of them cultural. But I find the problems with the State's existence to be far more abhorrent than the possibility that things might not go as planned when supplanting the government's role in society with voluntary associations. At the very worst, the downside is not nearly as severe nor as prolonged as that of State Socialism. And at the very best, well...

By empiricist I was referring to using actual examples from the real world rather than just using theory. But OK let's talk theory.

How are conflicts and torts resolved? Ive read that libertarians distinguish themselves from anarchists by claiming they see a role for government, just a small role. (I think I've seen the term "minarchist" used) One of these roles is courts. So I will assume that there will be courts that handle disputes.

One idea talked about here is how limited liability for corporations helps create concentrations of power. If the shareholders of the corporation were liable, then they would make sure than the corporation behaved. But that is only true if the court can take action against the shareholders. Suppose the shareholder is an entity like a Swiss bank? That is, a bank located in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the authority of the court. You can sue the bank and win in court, but you won't ever collect.

Rich investors, who can afford the services of a Swiss bank, can invest in equity with no risk from liability. They can gain wealth and power, not by growing a single company to large size, but by buying interests in many growing companies. On the other hand, those too poor to interest Swiss banks simply cannot afford the liability risk from having positions in many companies (which you have to do to get proper diversification). The result would be to reserve the superior returns of equity to the rich. A reform designed to weaken private power would serve to augment it.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

By empiricist I was referring to using actual examples from the real world rather than just using theory.

Well I thought I did that, but OK.

How are conflicts and torts resolved? Ive read that libertarians distinguish themselves from anarchists by claiming they see a role for government, just a small role. (I think I've seen the term "minarchist" used) One of these roles is courts. So I will assume that there will be courts that handle disputes.

"Courts" are not incompatible with anarchism. (And neither is libertarianism, which might be implied in the above.)

One idea talked about here is how limited liability for corporations helps create concentrations of power. If the shareholders of the corporation were liable, then they would make sure than the corporation behaved. But that is only true if the court can take action against the shareholders. Suppose the shareholder is an entity like a Swiss bank? That is, a bank located in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the authority of the court. You can sue the bank and win in court, but you won't ever collect.

Rich investors, who can afford the services of a Swiss bank, can invest in equity with no risk from liability. They can gain wealth and power, not by growing a single company to large size, but by buying interests in many growing companies. On the other hand, those too poor to interest Swiss banks simply cannot afford the liability risk from having positions in many companies (which you have to do to get proper diversification). The result would be to reserve the superior returns of equity to the rich. A reform designed to weaken private power would serve to augment it.

A few things:

1) I could actually see limited liability arising from free associations, absent State privilege, if the situation called for it.
2) My (not unfounded) guess is that the profit motive would be significantly lessened in such a system -- FWIW, I happily identify as a libertarian socialist.
3) You know, there are other methods besides legal recourse to discourage such behavior.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well I thought I did that, but OK.

Did you? Do you think the quotes below address the issue to which it is a response? I don't think so, hence the followup questions.

A few things:

1) I could actually see limited liability arising from free associations, absent State privilege, if the situation called for it.

Then limited liability is't a bad thing? Then why has it bee brought up?

My (not unfounded) guess is that the profit motive would be significantly lessened in such a system.

You would abolish capitalism? How would you do this?

You know, there are other methods besides legal recourse to discourage such behavior.

Could you enlarge on this? Perhaps with some examples?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Then limited liability isn't a bad thing? Then why has it been brought up?

There is a part of limited liability that is unobjectionable -- the idea that some contributors to an endeavor could secure a contact that limits their liability to the amount contributed. There is another part that is -- the "entity status" that makes it so that an organization is distinct from any of its members.

In the former case, some people agree to take on the legal liability of others in order to secure their financial assistance. In the latter, some people legally shield themselves from responsibility to anyone, regardless of anyone else's wishes.