Ask a Libertarian: "How Can Libertarianism Work Without (Publicly) Educated Masses?"

Welcome to Ask a Libertarian with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. They are the authors of the new book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America.

Go to http://declaration2011.com to purchase, read reviews, find event dates, and more.

On June 15, 2011 Gillespie and Welch used short, rapid-fire videos to answer dozens of reader questions submitted via email, Twitter, Facebook, and Reason.com. In this episode, they answer the question:

"How can libertarianism work without educated masses?"

For the complete series, go to http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/10/ask-a-libertarian and Reason.tv's YouTube Channel at http://youtube.com/reasontv

Produced by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, Josh Swain, with help from Katie Hooks, Kyle Blaine and Jack Gillespie.

Comments

[MWG]

The commentariat demands to see 'the jacket'!

[Mango Punch]

It is kinda funny how Nick keeps on changing shirts though.

[MWG]

That's what made me think of the jacket.

[SugarFree]

They are all The Jacket. It has as many faces as there are names for God.

[Zuo]

We want the Jacket! /pitchfork

[Richard Head]

How about some examples of countries where libertarianism has been a successful mode of government?

[MWG]

Dick Head's back.

[free2booze]

The "classical liberal" philosophy of government, found in the early years of the United States seemed to work pretty well.

Not countries, but here's a recent example of libertarianism on the local level in action:

"HOA Threatens To Sue Wildfire Survivor"

[SugarFree]

Yes. Everyone in an HOA is a libertarian. Died in the wool, blue true libertarian. Everyone of them.

Just like when the government owned and operated fire department let that guy's house burn down was all libertarianism's fault too.

[Brett L]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I've neary managed to convince enough people in my HOA that it is not worth their time to be on the board. I'm quite hopeful that there won't be enough candidates to meet the charter rules. Is this HOA nullification?

[MWG]

"Is this HOA nullification?"

No, it's anarchy!

I never said that "everyone in an HOA is a libertarian."

Richard's question was

"How about some examples of countries where libertarianism has been a successful mode of government?"

HOAs are a form of privatized government, which -- according to libertarians -- are governed by contracts that people agree to. I take issue with that interpretation, for reasons beyond the scope of this comment.

Are you denying that privatized governments that people "agree" to in a "contract" is not a libertarian form of government?

Suing a homeowner for parking his RV on his own property, in violation of the CC&Rs; -- specifically "Article 8, Section 3(e) of the Sportsman's World Property Owners Association covenant" -- is about as libertarian as it gets.

And I failed to check my HTML code before hitting the "submit" button.

Correct link is

HOAs are a form of privatized government

which is a 2MB PDF from the Cato Institute titled "What Are Private Governments Worth?"

[SugarFree]

Not every contractual obligation and arrangement can be lain at the feet of libertarianism. I guess the NYC public school rubber rooms for teachers they can't fire are our fault as well?

But beyond that... so what? If he agreed to place restrictions on his own use of his property, that's on him.

The people in the HOA are assholes for enforcing that clause in a disaster situation. But that's all libertarianism fault too, right? Because you never, never, ever have to deal with rule-bound assholes when you deal with the state.

What's your point? What do assholes from The State have to do with the assholes who inevitably run Libertarian Utopia?

Are you denying that, in the real world we live in, libertarian forms of governments are repressive?

[SugarFree]

You are free not to join a HOA. When I was I given the choice to pay taxes and suffer no consequences? (Wait, wait... don't tell me... "America, love it or leave it!")

And libertarianism makes no claims on creating a utopia: maximal freedom would be great for some, good for most, and a nightmare for socialist morons like you.

Being free is not a form of repression. Not being allowed to violate other people's self-ownership rights is not a form of oppression. Freely entering into agreements that bind your actions is not a form of tyranny.

You might... might have a point if everyone was forced into joining an HOA. Which, if undesirable, would either be undercut in a libertarian society by someone quite willing to sell you land not covered by an HOA and would only really be mandatory if... ta da!... mandated by your beloved government.

[alan]

Very good rebute, SF, but, Jesus Christ what is the guy's point. When did we, of all the assholes on this planet, ever promise anyone a rose garden? Yes, even absent of government coercion, disputes still occur between purely private parties. If you can't live with that nameless one, you might as well go ahead and end it all now because even at today's unprecedented rate of government growth and intrusion there will never be enough bureaucrats around to actually wipe your ass for you.

"what is the guy's point"

1. HOAs are the real world implementation of libertarian government.

2. HOAs are repressive.

The original question asked for examples of libertarian government. I provided one.

[alan]

The original question asked for examples of libertarian government. I provided one.

No. You showed that disputes occur absent government intrusion. Oppression doesn't mean what you are straining to make it mean.

"No. You showed that disputes occur absent government intrusion."

Stating the obvious that "disputes occur" between private parties does nothing to refute my point that HOAs are a libertarian form of government.

I'm going to use all caps here to emphasize something:

ACCORDING TO LIBERTARIANS , homeowners agreed to subject themselves to the governing documents of the private HOA corporation.

How are HOAs not a libertarian form of government?

" socialist morons like you."

Please explain why you believe that I am

(1) a socialist

(2) a moron

[SugarFree]

Did I hurt your feelings, little buddy? Maybe rather come kiss it make feel all better.

No, it was a serious question.

I don't really give a crap if you think I'm a moron. I don't expect better from you, or anyone else on the internet.

But what about my comments lead you to believe that I'm a socialist?

SugarFree still cannot explain his position re socialism.

Like a right-wing version of Jon Stewart, Bully, he prefers to hide behind glibness and a lame attempt at comedy when he can't back up his statements.

One thing communists/socialists and libertarians have in common is that they both refuse to admit when their socio-economic theories are demonstrated to be wrong in the real world.

So what is your opinion about mandatory membership in a labor union as a condition of employment?

Bonus question: Who wants to outlaw the practice?

"You are free not to join a HOA."

See InstaPundit.com/120771/ (May 15, 2011 at 2:31 PM):

Al Franken made a late appearance and demonstrated, once again, why Saturday Night Live suits him better than the United States Senate. Franken got angry and said it is untrue that anyone is ever forced to join an HOA...[Republican U.S. Senator Mike] Enzi quipped, in response to Franken's error, that you wouldn't have to join an HOA unless "you wanted a home."

[Tonio]

Dye, Sugar, Dye, Dye Dye...

Like a juvenile monkey, SugarFree flings his poo and flees.

[R C Dean]

USA pre-FDR?

[sarcasmic]

I think you need to go a little further back than that.
I'd say pre WWI.

[Jim]

Pffft, this country jumped the shark at the Whiskey Rebellion.

[sarcasmic]

yeah

[13th century peasant]

How about some examples of European countries where limited monarchy has been a successful mode of government?

No examples?

Well then take that Magna Carta and stick it up your ass.

[21st century knowledge worker]

I wish my taxes were as low as yours.

[Mango Punch]

Good series - these will be a great easy way to educate people on what libertarians generally think on specific topics.

That said, answer my damn question on when philosophy and economics disagree (on your FB page).

[Sparky]

Good series - these will be a great easy way to educate people on what libertarians Nick and Matt generally think on specific topics. I haven't watched the videos yet but it would be pretty presumptive of them to assume they're speaking for me (which I don't believe they do).

[Mango Punch]

Sparky, you're such an individualist. Join the Matt and Nick Collective!

[Sparky]

As I said, I haven't watched the videos yet so I might agree with what they're saying. However, I'm pretty certain I've seen both of them say straight out that they would never claim to speak for all people. I'm guessing their answers are just grounded in standard libertarian philosophy which is as good a way as any to get the ideas across.

[alan]

The series title is 'Ask a Libertarian,' not 'Ask the Libertarian.'

[Sparky]

Thanks for the update, I'm pretty sure I read that in the title. However, if you read Mango's initial post you would see that he's saying this will educate people on what libertarians think. My posts were just clarifications that the libertarians in question are just Matt and Nick. I'm not arguing with anyone here, but as someone else posted in one of the other threads "not all libertarians agree on all issues".

[Sparky]

For further evidence of this, see the abortion thread.

[alan]

Duly noted. It does make sense in the context of your dispute.

[alan]

Sparky|6.15.11 @ 4:57PM|#

For further evidence of this, see the abortion thread.

If you have never seen my name in threads on abortion, there is a reason for that.

[JD]

Can't WTFV at work, but I think a better question is "How can libertarianism work with masses indoctrinated in the public schools?"

[Rhet O'Rical]

How can the country work with masses indoctrinated in the public schools?

[JD]

Pretty damn poorly from the looks of it.

[Brandon]

Pretty damn poorly from the books of it.

[I, Kahn O'Clast]

So which is it: Vouchers or no tax support for other people's kids education? The obvious answer is that zero tax support for other people's kids would be the purist Libertarian position.

The problem comes when deciding if there is a common good here where even a Libertarian may come off on the side of some communal support (as in courts and the like). Having worked in inner-city education (albeit for only a year) I have zero expectations that those kids would get educated if their moms had to foot the bill and every expectation that at least as a warehousing exercise the public at large would send those kids to school and pick up the tab.

I am a strong proponent for competition in schooling and a voucher fan. Everyone has a vested interest in some form of public education.....

[The Ghost of Joseph Stalin]

Everyone has a vested interest in some form of public education.....

I completely agree.

[Concerned]

I also agree that public education is important; however, vouchers will drastically reduce the amount of operating capital schools have. We cannot support vouchers, as this will increase the likelihood that people will begin private ventures focused on capitalizing on the educational market... Not good for all of us.

[Zuo]

Nay, I would simply adjust mine monocle and ensure that the uneducated urchins from the cess-laden metropolis not contaminate my fair estate. That their parents are contemptible scum is no problem of mine. They had the kid; its their responsibility. I'm not paying for it unless it will follow my rules rigidly, as my own kid would have to.

Maybe if they weren't guaranteed handouts, they'd be a little more careful about popping out useless kids that they don't actually want?

Summary: Why the fuck should we pay child support for kids who aren't ours, or even vaguely related to us, for that matter?

[Gangbangers]

Why the fuck should we pay child support for kids who aren't ours, or even vaguely related to us, for that matter?

Cuz we be da fabrec o socety, fool!

[Concerned]

The reason you should be concerned about families that aren't your is because the majority foe the American families are middle class, including myself. While I do favor a more community or locally based perspective, addressing the needs of those without realistic economic options WILL reduce crime in that specific area. That is why, my man!

[Hazel Meade]

After the individual mandate debate last week, I'm thinking not.

People at least need some basic education on their rights, and on basic philosophy of government. Otherwise they will not even be able to stand up for basic rights against the police force.

Has it occured to anyone else that maybe the reason the cops are more abusive in poor communities might be because those people have no idea what their rights are, and no idea how to assert them?

Aside from that, a population that is completely ignorant of the founding principles of the country is likely to not know things like, for instance, that the federal government has limited powers, or that the Bill of Rights was controversial because it created a perception that those were the only limits on federal power.

[sarcasmic]

You are so correct.
Without government education there would be no education at all.
There would be no private schools, no charities to help poor people with schooling, and no standards at those non-existent schools.

If government doesn't do it no one will.

[Hazel Meade]

I don't really care who does the educating.

The point is that a broadly uneducated populace, democracy, and libertarianism are mutually incompatible.

You aren't ever going to have a stable libertarianism in a democracy where 50+ percent of the population doesn't know what 'habeas corpus' means.

[sarcasmic]

"I don't really care who does the educating."

I can tell you who is not doing the educating.

"The point is that a broadly uneducated populace, democracy, and libertarianism are mutually incompatible."

I will not argue against that.

"You aren't ever going to have a stable libertarianism in a democracy where 50+ percent of the population doesn't know what 'habeas corpus' means."

Is that an accident or by design?

[alan]

"The point is that a broadly uneducated populace, democracy, and libertarianism are mutually incompatible."

I will not argue against that.

I will. The free market show case of the city of Hong Kong was built by an a mostly uneducated mass of people. Those who built the infrastructure of our nation and continue to do so today received very little or very little useful education. Even for those in the professions it has proven to be a vast waste of time and resources. You really have to be a specialist in a rarefied field to get anything equivelant of equal value in terms of your time and money out of it. So many young adults would be better served by two year degrees or apprenticeship programs than the liberal arts degrees they end up with borders on the tragic for our culture. It is almost a national death wish for our continued prosperity sanctified through our mores founded on a sense of guilt where we are expected to go waste years of our lives in front of black boards, listening to lectures, as a form of absolution because, otherwise, the good life is assumed all too easily.

[R C Dean]

I don't really care who does the educating.

I do, because who does the educating tells you not just the quality of the education, but its content.

And State education will be an education in the wonder and glory of the Total State, the need of the population for enlightened guidance from Our Masters, and similar indoctrination that is incompatible with a free people.

[Kristen]

As a childless person, I would happily pay (and pay way more than I am now through taxes) for other people's children to go to school....through reputable charities and private scholarship funds. The government is neither reputable nor a charity.

[R C Dean]

Why would anyone expect libertarianism to work with the State in charge of education?

[ftfy]

Why would anyone expect libertarianism anything to work with the State in charge of education?

[GILMORE]

Masses?

We don't need no stinkin Masses!

[CE]

You don't have to be educated to know enough to not trust the government.

[scarpe Nike Store]

is good

[Dedicated Citizen]

I understand the idea of separating government from the education of the population;however, I worry that creating an environment influenced by corporations (which will happen with privatized education) will result in a system that will focus more on branding than unbiased education. As someone in education, I have not been given a nonpartisan view that can justify this. Aside from almost everything else, I do consider myself a libertarian... I just cannot abandon my livelihood for a system that will pay me less for my work while simultaneously paying someone else more.