Thoughts on Libertarianism

[story]

Interesting discussion. I’m reading it in chunks, not all at once.
Thanks to kabbes and littlebabyjesus in particular for the time you’ve invested here.

So without having finished reading the page preceding this post, and accepting the probability that the discussion has already moved way further, I wanted to say that it seems to me that the thing that sets humans apart from other animals is our tendency and ability to store information so that it can be transmitted further than the immediate interaction.

Knowledge, thoughts, idea: if we have the means to store and pass these on, we don’t have to rely on the physical presence of the originator. That seems unique to me. Does any other animal have this capacity? I can’t think of any. Termites have the instinct to build their cities and will do so in isolation from other termites but if one colony develops new understanding it can’t be shared further than one degree of separation. (unless we want to get into Hundred Monkeys theory….).

To my thinking, the question of what sets us apart is something to do with the urge - and the capacity - to transmit information. Ever increasing development of the media to make this possible is what has driven our further defelopments.

So that’s language and storytelling in the first instance, followed by all the other stuff from writing and art through to radio, telephone, television and everything that follows.

Did marks made on bones predate proto language? I’d argue those marks were motivated by the urge or compulsion to transmit or share knowledge, and ideas. That urge leads to petroglyphs, cave art, stone carvings, stone circles and all the rest, all done with the intention to transmit something from my brain out further than those individuals I have direct contact with, and down the generations.

So far as I can tell no other species has the compulsion to do this, nor the means.

Did we develop language to meet the underlying compulsion or did the development of language trigger the compulsion? That’s the chicken/egg bit of the question.




As for the libertarian stuff…. I’m essentially anarchist by nature so my politics necessarily follows that. And obvs I’m Left. The granular details of that (labels etc) has fluctuated to some degree over the years. But the fact that labels and boxes immediately make me bristle and wakes the rebel reflex means that it’s fairly pointless for me to try to find a specific category for my thinking (especially since we seem to be trapped for all time in this capitalism thing).




(A person once asked me “what are you?”. Reductive question makes no sense.)


(As a semi-American with family in Republican states I’ve had many frustrating and ultimately pointless discussions with folks there about what is: socialism, statism, libertarianism, liberalism, marxism, fascism, capitalism…. usually stemming from a puzzled query about the NHS.)

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Just thought I'd say that the last two videos I posted on the Left Tube and Anarchist Videos thread are about how left libertarian societies/structures could function - one of them is a detailed and real example of Democratic Confederalism in Rojava (Northern Syria).

Might also be a good idea to read Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin if you want to have an understanding of left libertarianism, and theres other stuff you can read such as the Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (Bookchin's book is more recent though).

 

[8ball]

I had an (American) work colleague who called himself Libertarian. I said I was too, according to the original definition of the word.

He wasn’t comfortable when I put to him that his freedom was enhanced if he was able to take risks, whether physical or financial, with a properly funded socialised healthcare system backing him up, as opposed to having to be cautious and constrained due to the risk of being crippled by medical bills, whether that be accident or bad luck.

It’s not actually freedom that they believe in, it’s something like a particular pattern of dependencies upheld by tradition, masquerading as a universal morality.

For the ones that believe sincerely, anyway.

 

[8ball]

According to Bregman, the negative, distrustful, self-centred view of humanity that we're condtioned with can become a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don’t think most people have that kind of view of humanity.

 

[8ball]

Ok so setting aside how we get there from here (a big question!), communes would not only need to confederate, there would also need to be some kind of mechanism in place to ensure compliance with whatever it is they agree to jointly. How do you protect your system against malicious actors?

Did you mean internally or externally?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Did you mean internally or externally?

Both. Malicious actors wherever they may be.

It's naive to think there won't be any.

This is where for me most libertarian ideas of the left and right fall down. I think individual liberty is best maintained in a socialist state. In addition to organising for the common good, said state is going to need to be able to exercise some form of a monopoly on violence. Without the latter, it can't do the former.

I guess I'm not a libertarian of any kind any more tbh. I don't advocate an overbearing state, and I see no need for a socialist state to be overbearing, but I don't see a good society without something state-like to organise things and manage limited essential resources.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just thought I'd say that the last two videos I posted on the Left Tube and Anarchist Videos thread are about how left libertarian societies/structures could function - one of them is a detailed and real example of Democratic Confederalism in Rojava (Northern Syria).

Might also be a good idea to read Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin if you want to have an understanding of left libertarianism, and theres other stuff you can read such as the Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (Bookchin's book is more recent though).

I read Kropotkin many years ago and was very taken by him. I now think he was naive in the romantic way that aristocratic revolutionaries are prone to. (I also have been very influenced by his ideas in Mutual Aid, even if I think he was naive. He was very right to emphasise cooperation over competition.)

As for a post-scarcity world, that ain't happening. For the same reason you don't see a pond only half-full of life.

 

[8ball]

Both. Malicious actors wherever they may be.

It's naive to think there won't be any.

This is where for me most libertarian ideas of the left and right fall down. I think individual liberty is best maintained in a socialist state. In addition to organising for the common good, said state is going to need to be able to exercise some form of a monopoly on violence. Without the latter, it can't do the former.

I guess I'm not a libertarian of any kind any more tbh. I don't advocate an overbearing state, and I see no need for a socialist state to be overbearing, but I don't see a good society without something state-like to organise things and manage limited essential resources.

Police organisations within separate states manage to co-operate to deal with international crimes without determining one organisation to be "the boss" (except where the FBI is involved, obv, because they're stuck in that mindset).

The closest to a 'standard line' on dealing with 'bad actors' (that I know of) is that non-cooperation from the group becomes the last resort in dealing with poor behaviour. This may or may not involve banishment from an area, depending on the theory/writer involved.

I'm sceptical of solutions that say "people are not perfect and may act badly, so we must concentrate all the capacity for violence into one individual or small sub-group".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sceptical of solutions that say "people are not perfect and may act badly, so we must concentrate all the capacity for violence into one individual or small sub-group".

Yes, and I'm not advocating maintenance of the current set-up. But some ideas don't scale up well, for a variety of reasons. Keeping harmony/order within a small group of people who share a common purpose is one thing. Keeping harmony/order among billions of people, or even just millions living in the same city, is quite another.

 

[8ball]

Yes, and I'm not advocating maintenance of the current set-up. But some ideas don't scale up well, for a variety of reasons. Keeping harmony/order within a small group of people who share a common purpose is one thing. Keeping harmony/order among billions of people, or even just millions living in the same city, is quite another.

I'm a bit old-fashioned in believing that you need a base of common culture and values, and to build in tolerance for variation that falls within those bounds.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbh the only sensible way to address the 'people are...' question is to say that we're complicated. We're capable of collective good and bad and individual good and bad. We can be generous and kind and selfish and mean-spirited. We have very much evolved to cooperate within groups, but we have also evolved to be status-strivers within those groups.

The schemes I'm sceptical of are those that think they can mould a new form of human through their system. It's a common theme from Plato onwards. We need to build and organise for people as they are, not as we wish they would be.

 

[8ball]

tbh the only sensible way to address the 'people are...' question is to say that we're complicated. We're capable of collective good and bad and individual good and bad. We can be generous and kind and selfish and mean-spirited. We have very much evolved to cooperate within groups, but we have also evolved to be status-strivers within those groups.

The schemes I'm sceptical of are those that think they can mould a new form of human through their system. It's a common theme from Plato onwards. We need to build and organise for people as they are, not as we wish they would be.

100% with you there. Many of the most dangerous people and groups in history have been ones who thought people were perfectible.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Malatesta is also definitely worth a read, he had criticisms of Kropotkin aswell.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I don’t think most people have that kind of view of humanity.

No shit.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

As for a post-scarcity world, that ain't happening. For the same reason you don't see a pond only half-full of life.

Yeah, its a complete waste of time reading that book and its totally impossible to ever learn anything from it or find it at all informative in any way.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, its a complete waste of time reading that book and no one can ever learn anything from it or find at all informative in any way.

You do like these passive-aggressive retorts, don't you?

The fact that post-scarcity can never happen is a big reason for me not to read a book entitled Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Maybe you could suggest why I should think otherwise.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

There was a question in there. How do you protect your system from malicious actors? What would a confederation of communes look like? I don't think it's an unreasonable question.

And how do we get from here to there is always a key question because we have to start from here.

You got that reply from me coz you came across as very patronising and rather pompous and ridiculous. But don't worry, you're not at all the only one who has that problem on these forums.

 

[hitmouse]

I had an (American) work colleague who called himself Libertarian. I said I was too, according to the original definition of the word.

He wasn’t comfortable when I put to him that his freedom was enhanced if he was able to take risks, whether physical or financial, with a properly funded socialised healthcare system backing him up, as opposed to having to be cautious and constrained due to the risk of being crippled by medical bills, whether that be accident or bad luck.

It’s not actually freedom that they believe in, it’s something like a particular pattern of dependencies upheld by tradition, masquerading as a universal morality.

For the ones that believe sincerely, anyway.

I always think the border question is an interesting test for right-libertarians - surely, if your ideology is about individual freedom above all else, that has to include freedom of movement, and so fighting against border controls, deportations and so on has to be a key part of that? And maybe there are some of them who are at least minimally consistent with that, but there are certainly a lot that aren't.

 

[8ball]

I always think the border question is an interesting test for right-libertarians - surely, if your ideology is about individual freedom above all else, that has to include freedom of movement, and so fighting against border controls, deportations and so on has to be a key part of that? And maybe there are some of them who are at least minimally consistent with that, but there are certainly a lot that aren't.

Oh yes, he also enjoyed it when I said supporting the free movement of capital without the free movement of labour was effectively allowing some countries to enslave others economically, so antithetical to his stated values.

 

[Serge Forward]

You do like these passive-aggressive retorts, don't you?

The fact that post-scarcity can never happen is a big reason for me not to read a book entitled Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Maybe you could suggest why I should think otherwise.

I seem to recall Bookchin's point being that scarcity is enforced by the capitalists/state. So as long as we have capitalism/the state, then you're right in saying we'll never have post scarcity. But if we as humanity move beyond the present system, then there are other possibilities.

 

[Pickman's model]

I seem to recall Bookchin's point being that scarcity is enforced by the capitalists/state. So as long as we have capitalism/the state, then you're right in saying we'll never have post scarcity. But if we as humanity move beyond the present system, then there are other possibilities.

Hence littlebabyjesus the presence of the word anarchism in the book's title.

 

[A380]

A major difference imo between humans and other animals is that humans will pursue their prey for as long as it takes, as opposed to eg lions or cheetahs who will let prey go if they lose a short chase. And you see this in lots of areas of life, dogged determination to see something through, which imo is one of the human traits that have led us to our current predicament

What about crocodiles eh? That one pursued Captain Hook for years before he caught and ate him.

 

[Pickman's model]

tbh the only sensible way to address the 'people are...' question is to say that we're complicated. We're capable of collective good and bad and individual good and bad. We can be generous and kind and selfish and mean-spirited. We have very much evolved to cooperate within groups, but we have also evolved to be status-strivers within those groups.

The schemes I'm sceptical of are those that think they can mould a new form of human through their system. It's a common theme from Plato onwards. We need to build and organise for people as they are, not as we wish they would be.

You're very keen in the notion of evolution like it's a) an upward trend and b) something scientifically verifiable. But human nature - cooperation / status strivers - is not something that evolves but is the result of circumstances and environment.

 

[Pickman's model]

What about crocodiles eh? That one pursued Captain Hook for years before he caught and ate him.

The fictional croc?

 

[A380]

The fictional croc?

Every time you say that, one of Tinkerbell's friends dies. You monster.

 

[mojo pixy]

You seem to be finding problems where really there are none in a sense. I don't think its too hard to envision how it would work.

For you, ok, you've given it a lot of thought and your mind may be more or less made up. But there are millions of people who disagree, can't see, don't even want to or care. Dare I say more who disagree that 'anarchism' of any kind is an answer, than agree or even understand what that means. Who don't trust their neighbours let alone people from other countries. Do they all have to read Kropotkin? What if they don't want to, or can't even read, or deeply believe in family and the power of the nation state?

This question has come up time and again and will continue to; how do you imagine reaching and persuading this huge majority of normies? Especially if the aim is not to impose an even stricter top-down system than we already have, to coerce/force compliance with new norms? (I think we can broadly agree, that doesn't really work)

We can't actually get anywhere, till there's an answer to this conundrum. Seriously. How do I persuade eg. the people I work with, not just to agree but to engage? And if I don't, how do we get there? And while I'm asking, what will make me do that work? (Rather than just make the best of what we have, which let's face it, is the devil I/we already know)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I seem to recall Bookchin's point being that scarcity is enforced by the capitalists/state. So as long as we have capitalism/the state, then you're right in saying we'll never have post scarcity. But if we as humanity move beyond the present system, then there are other possibilities.

Ok. I don't buy it. For the foreseeable future scarcity is a feature.

As for being able to move beyond that, that smacks of projects to change people.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ok. I don't buy it.

But it’s true. There is ample for all.

 

[Serge Forward]

Ok. I don't buy it. For the foreseeable future scarcity is a feature.

As for being able to move beyond that, that smacks of projects to change people.

Projects to change the world, really.

But what don't you buy? The fact that millions of tons of food is routinely destroyed because it's been over-produced and is unprofitable? The fact that the bulk of the world's population lives either at basic subsistence level or extreme poverty? The fact that tens of thousands of people living on the planet continue to die every single day because of poverty and malnutrition? None of these things are accidental. They are a social, political and economic choice by those who run and profit from the current set up.

I can't remember exactly the most recent figures but enough food is currently produced to adequately feed everyone on the planet two or three times over. This means that global capitalism has in fact been post-scarcity for several decades now. So scarcity is basically artificial, something manufactured solely to perpetuate capitalism.

 

[danny la rouge]

Projects to change the world, really.

But what don't you buy? The fact that millions of tons of food is routinely destroyed because it's been over-produced and is unprofitable? The fact that the bulk of the world's population lives either at basic subsistence level or extreme poverty? The fact that tens of thousands of people living on the planet continue to die every single day because of poverty and malnutrition? None of these things are accidental. They are a social, political and economic choice by those who run and profit from the current set up.

I can't remember exactly the most recent figures but enough food is currently produced to adequately feed everyone on the planet two or three times over. This means that global capitalism has in fact been post-scarcity for several decades now. So scarcity is basically artificial, something manufactured solely to perpetuate capitalism.

https://gip