MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'Warlords Will Take Over' and Other Lines Libertarians Are Tired of Hearing

We asked the attendees at PorcFest 2018.

Venezuela didn't try real socialism. Bitcoin is a tool for criminals. Without big government, warlords will take over.

We traveled deep into the woods of New Hampshire to ask the libertarians at the 2018 Porcupine Freedom Festival, a.k.a. PorcFest, what lines they're most tired of hearing.

Organized by the Free State Project, the annual festival is a week-long campout for libertarians, anarchists, and other self-identified fans of freedom. They gathered to attend workshops, purchase cannabis-infused coffee with cryptocurrency, and talk philosophy around a raging bonfire.

There was plenty of ideological diversity, but the attendees seemed united by the reactions that their friends and family members have to their political views.

Produced, shot, and edited by Justin Monticello. Music by Dan Lebowitz, The Grand Affair, Geographer, and Matt Harris.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Aloysious||

    "I like being free." - I like this girl.

    Also: Lezbertarians? [pervy comment redacted]

  • The Last American Hero||

    No such thing. It is a scientific fact that the gene that makes you attracted to the same sex also gives you a supreme confidence in the ability of large government programs to get things done.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Citation needed.

  • epsilon given||

    I don't have the citation, but it's well known that the genes that makes you black, Latino, a woman, well-educated, and so forth, also make you love government.

    Thus, if you're one of these things, and you don't love government, not only are you NOT REALLY one of these things, you're NOT EVEN HUMAN!!!1!1!1ELEVENTY!!!1!1!

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    But was she a libertarian? Stay on topic!

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    "I don't have the citation, but it's well known that the genes that makes you black, Latino, a woman, well-educated, and so forth, also make you love government."

    That's why the Libertarian Party is full of straight white male nerds.

    And Starchild.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    This video is great. The PorcFest gathering is a great example of what a libertarian society would look like. A multicultural agora. Not some inbred homogeneous gated community, as the propertarians would like to believe.

  • Ricardo Vacilon||

    There is nothing in propertarianism that prefers either multicultural agoras or homogeneous gated communities. In this respect, it's value-free.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What about the motivations behind propertarianism?

  • lulz farmer||

    Who cares? Your personal mentally ill moral system doesn't make it more or less valid because you impute or even actually know the real motivations behind it being something you find distasteful.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Motivations matter, because they will guide the interpretations and applications of any moral system. To believe otherwise is to engage in foolishness of the highest order.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    She was a serious cutey too.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Here is my reaction to their political views. At least on this blog, they are probably tired of hearing it. But none of them has ever even attempted to offer a realistic answer to this question: Under libertarianism, where does the force come from to limit government?

    If you are an anarchist, of course you don't need to answer. But for all the rest of you, the ones who think a golden day will dawn, the courts will decree libertarianism, and everyone else will have to fall in line—what is going to make that happen? And please reflect before answering, because the follow-up question is, "If everyone, or nearly everyone, is going to get enlightened, and see the libertarian advantage, then what do you need the courts for? You could win your program politically, so why not do that?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Ultimately it has to come from the people, recognizing that their enlightened self-interest of expanding liberty for everyone is more important than any narrow self-interest of restricting the liberty of others for their narrow gain.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Lenin and Trotsky said some similar stuff, but with a different end goal. This time will be different?!?

    Religions are still religions no matter how you cut it.

  • John||

    If you are an anarchist, of course you don't need to answer.

    Yes, you do. You have to explain not just how you get rid of government but how you keep one from arising again after the one you have is gone. Anarchy is just a roundabout way of saying "wouldn't it be great if everyone could settle their differences peacefully?". That is all it is.

  • BLPoG||

    Your comment is wrong twice over. First, it is completely legitimate to argue for a society that embodies a certain ideal, even if the strictest, purest form of that ideal is unlikely to be a achieved. We can say that murder is wrong and try to stop it even while recognizing that murder will continue to occur.

    Second, there are several proposed methods of moving toward an anarchist society. Some are more plausible than others but you treat the topic as if no one has ever tried to address it, when in fact it's one of the most-discussed topics in the hardcore libertarian movement, both in the literature and in conversation within the community. The stability problem is recognized as perhaps the most challenging problem, but you act as if it needs to "solved" in some perfect way, which is totally false. Look at the history of states. Only a fool would argue that states have solved the stability problem, and since the failure condition in the anarcho-capitalist society is return to state authority, the idea that the stability problem is a reason to reject anarcho-capitalism is nonsensical on its face.

    Your argument can be summarized as "I've never read any anarcho-capitalist literature, therefore my lack of knowledge and/or capacity for novel thought constitutes proof that the anarchist position is wrong." That's some weak sauce, right there.

  • Tony||

    There have been many parlor games in the guise of books trying to justify anarchic societies, but the stability problem with anarchy is not a general case but a specific one, and fatal. Start over with no states and the mos likely outcome, probably taking almost no time at all, is the establishment of a state more unconcerned with individual liberty than what we already have, since it will be some douchebag taking power by force.

  • IceTrey||

    If everyone is an anarchist who is going to support a violent takeover?

  • Tony||

    I'm almost afraid to ask, but how do you make everyone an anarchist? Or do you just mean "everyone remaining" after the Great Freedoming?

  • ||

    "Let me just get this straight. You're saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?"

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    "Let me just get this straight. You're saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?"

    Establish dominance by pissing in each others' faces?

  • Don't look at me.||

    So Trump would win again?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Was it ever settled who was the pisser and who was the pissee in that story?

  • IceTrey||

    Well in order to start over with no states pretty much the entirety of humanity would have to be on board with anarchy right?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    It's hilarious that John and Tony, the two moron mascots for the two opposing sides of the idiotic political spectrum, both agree on this issue. Not so different after all, when you dig deep enough, are you guys?

  • Tony||

    People who believe in the utility of government walk among you.

    It's most people. Like almost everyone.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yes, Tony. And most people in the 18th century believed in slavery.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Funny that you think the iron fist that should control as many aspects of lives as possible can be summarized effectively as utilitarian.

  • Longtobefree||

    Anarchists of the world, unite!

  • macsnafu||

    Tony has a parlor?

  • John||

    First, it is completely legitimate to argue for a society that embodies a certain ideal, even if the strictest, purest form of that ideal is unlikely to be a achieved.

    It may be legitimate but it is also meaningless.

    Only a fool would argue that states have solved the stability problem, and since the failure condition in the anarcho-capitalist society is return to state authority, the idea that the stability problem is a reason to reject anarcho-capitalism is nonsensical on its face.

    Think about what you just said. You can't solve the stability problem and you admit the solvign it is necessary for your system to work. But you then turn around and say rejecting your system because it can't solve one of the necessary problems for its existence is "non sensical on its face". Words really fail in how to respond to that.

    Anarchy is a Utopian dream that can never be achieved as long as human nature is what it is. Anarchy is the final state of Marxism. Eventually, everyone becomes the new Soviet man and works for the collective and government is no longer needed and just ceases to exist. Marx was an idiot but he at least understood that to achieve a state of anarchy you had to transform human nature. Anarchists can't even get that far.

  • ||

    Marx was an idiot but he at least understood that to achieve a state of anarchy you had to transform human nature. Anarchists can't even get that far.

    Well said. An idiot, hypocrite, and lazy/unemployed/unemployable, but he could at least rigorously capture his ideas, formulate a coherent plan, and convince people to give it a try (to their own detriment). Anarchists know their ideals are Utopian dreams and are explicitly content to leave them as such because it makes them really easy to defend (even easier than not practicing real socialism).

  • Ricardo Vacilon||

    I think the Free State Project was an attempt to move at least in the direction of anarchy.

  • CE||

    I thought it was an attempt to move 20,000 pro-liberty people to New Hampshire. How many people have moved so far?

  • Fk_Censorship||

    The could have picked a state with a more normal climate (for humans, not polar bears) and they would have attracted lot more libertarians.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    What was second place in the Free State "pick a state" contest... Wy-freakin'-oming? Just as cold and remote as New Hampshire, but with the added benefit that they beat queers in Wyoming!!

    With the exception of Delaware, all the ten semi-finalist states in the running were all cold, remote, sparsely populated and depressing - and clearly, for a reason.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Capture the ideas, yes. Write them down with anything that doesn't sound like L. Ron Hubbard, not so much.

  • BLPoG||

    The point is that "solving" the stability problem for eternity is not a reasonable standard and one that states have not achieved either. The question is how stability might best be supported. Your position requires that stability cannot be maintained for non-trivial period. The position that argues an anarchist society is viable only needs to show that it could be maintained for a non-trivial period. Further discussion is just about how to prolong that period. Fortunately for the anarchists, there is historical evidence that stability could be maintained for a few hundred years. One might argue that changing circumstances have increased or decreased that potential span, but the idea that it is impossible - especially since a few hundred years is an order of magnitude greater than what would qualify as a threshold period of stability - is transparently incorrect. You might know that, if you ever tried to learn about it rather than using your ignorance as a proof of your position.

  • IceTrey||

    Anarchy literally means "without rulers" (an- without arkhos - ruler). So any government which doesn't initiate force is in fact an anarchy.

  • John||

    Any government that does not at least have the threat of force is not a government. And any organization that does is a government no matter how much it pretends otherwise.

  • IceTrey||

    A proper government uses RETALIATORY force.

  • Tony||

    What if the initiator of force is not a person but a tornado. Can it respond then? Or is it for some completely inexplicable reason only human agents that governments are permitted to react to?

  • IceTrey||

    The reason is not inexplicable. Only humans are capable of violating the liberty of other humans. To answer your question in Libertopia there is plenty if private relief for natural disasters. Hell that 's pretty much how it works now. The Red Cross is a private entity for instance.

  • Tony||

    Only humans are capable of violating the liberty of other humans.

    Incorrect. If a tornado destroys my house, my liberty is violated. And if charity were sufficient to respond to the big problems that we invented governments to solve... we wouldn't have needed to bother. It's a total hand-wave of an argument.

  • ||

    And if charity were sufficient to respond to the big problems that we invented governments to solve... we wouldn't have needed to bother.

    How did government vs. private action do during the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey? or Katrina, for that matter?

    There can be no reason for governments wanting power over your life other than the failure of private charity, which you've been assured is totally a thing. Solid thinking, thy name is Tony!

  • Tony||

    If we rely on charity, then charities get to decide who gets help. I'm certainly not going to be convinced any time soon that religious leaders are better stewards of my community than secular bureaucrats.

  • NashTiger||

    Leaving aside and forgetting who founded the majority of universities, hospitals, women's shelters, homeless shelters, orphanages, soup kitchens, disabled jobs programs, prison outreach - Yeah, there's just mountains of evidence to support the idea of benevolent secular bureaucrats. that''s why they unionize - to spread the stewardship.

  • ||

    who founded the majority of universities, hospitals, women's shelters, homeless shelters, orphanages, soup kitchens, disabled jobs programs, prison outreach

    And the only schools that poor people can afford that don't suck.

  • ||

    I'm certainly not going to be convinced any time soon that religious leaders are better stewards of my community than secular bureaucrats.

    Seriously? You're considerably more deluded than I thought.

  • NashTiger||

    Hating religion is the new religion. No rational thought required

  • Tony||

    I happen to like not depending on religious people for my well-being. The establishment clause is one of my all-time favorite clauses.

  • Nardz||

    I mean, you could be independent.
    You know, rely on yourself...

  • Tony||

    Rely on myself to an extent no human does in any society you would set foot in?

    It takes a village.

  • damikesc||

    Nor do I.

    You know who I like depending on LESS? Government bureaucrats.

  • damikesc||

    If we rely on charity, then charities get to decide who gets help. I'm certainly not going to be convinced any time soon that religious leaders are better stewards of my community than secular bureaucrats.

    Not sure why you wouldn't believe that. Religion has killed scores fewer people than government has.

    Last century alone government trumped the entire combined existence of religion.

  • IceTrey||

    No.

    Liberty
    "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

  • damikesc||

    Only humans are capable of violating the liberty of other humans.

    I've had birds enter my house against my will and then tend to be exceptionally difficult to force to leave. They, therefore, violate my freedom, no?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That tornado is going to jail.

  • ||

    A proper government uses RETALIATORY force.

    The way Hitler liberated annexed Austria and Putin annexed Crimea.

  • IceTrey||

    Not at all.

  • lulz farmer||

    The funny thing about charities is that people are less giving in these multicult societies with huge free-rider problems.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Haha. Anarchist advocating for government that does not use force. Hilarious.

  • CE||

    But you could have a government that is funded voluntarily (no taxes) and that only uses force after obtaining a lawful warrant in a public court. If any agents of that government violate its principles, they would have no immunity for their unlawful actions.

  • Paloma||

    Government has a monopoly on the use of force. Otherwise how would disputes between people be solved? How would the rights of the individual be enforced?

  • ace_m82||

    I kill it.

    If another one come up, I kill that one.

    I reproduce and make more people willing to die to kill government.

    Next question.

  • John||

    The problem Libertarians have is that they can't explain why they are not anarchists.

  • IceTrey||

    We are. A government which does not initiate force does not rule.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchists are anarchists and NOT libertarians.

    Libertarianism in the USA is about limited and small government based on the US Constitution.

  • JoeBlow123||

    And open borders. Cant forget the most important plank.

  • Longtobefree||

    Only open borders if the pres says so.

  • Tony||

    That, and why government is the only threat to individual liberty we should care about.

  • IceTrey||

    Really? You don't worry about robbers, rapists and murderers?

  • Tony||

    So you're explaining your belief in government minimalism by listing all the things you think government should respond to with force?

  • IceTrey||

    No I'm saying there are threats to your liberty besides government.

  • Tony||

    And many of them aren't even human.

  • ||

    It has been explained to Tony many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times that thinking the government shouldn't be the exclusive agent to deal with any particular problem =/= thinking that the problem should not be addressed.

    Tony will never understand you, because he doesn't want to. You are wasting your time.

  • Tony||

    You just don't want to address them by means that are capable of addressing them. You want moral brownie points for making a frowny face when you hear about starving children, yet would forbid human beings from mobilizing anything nearly useful enough to actually deal with the problem.

  • Tony||

    And you don't sufficiently explain why, if government force is so bad, it become so good when it is retaliatory.

    If crime kills 100 people a year and tornadoes kill 100 people a year, why are so fundamentally different as social ills that we can mobilize collective resources to deal with one but not the other?

  • Brian||

    And you can't ever explain why, if government force is so good, and laws are so awesome, and taxes are so great, than why is legal slavery so bad?

    One would think that a thoughtful worldview would have some sort of explanation for what it concerns its own greatest human rights violations ever.

  • Tony||

    But I can explain why slavery is bad and I don't even have to bother with childish self-contradictory nonsense about whether government itself is legitimate.

    Here in the real world we simply debate the merits of the policy. Slavery is bad because it violates human liberty to an extreme degree. You'll find that individual liberty is my north star in everything as well, I just believe in better means of getting there.

  • Brian||

    I'm sorry, but you can't claim to be a good arguer and then propose question begging wins the argument.

  • Paloma||

    Crime is not just a "social ill". It violates the rights of an individual. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be a crime. Government uses force to protect the rights of individuals, for instance, if someone assaults and robs me, they violate my property rights. Murder violates my right to live. Kidnapping, rape, and assault violate my right to freedom of movement.

    Tornadoes don't violate anyone's rights. But people are free to mobilize and help one another deal with natural disasters such as tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes. Government is not the only way to deal with them, and since one way or another, it involves force, it usually isn't the best way.

  • ||

    You just don't want to address them by means that are capable of addressing them.

    I repeat my question from above:

    "How did government vs. private action do during the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey? or Katrina, for that matter?"

    Your blind assertion that only government can do things ignores the rather obvious, in-everyone's-faces-all-the-time inability of government to do much of anything other than get in the way of people who actually are trying to help, and it's great ability at siphoning money away from helpful functions and into their cronies' pocketses while loudly proclaiming to have everything under control.

    You, sir, are the one who wants to make a frowny face and demand that someone else be forced to deal with things you don't feel like helping with. You would rather sign your personal moral responsibility over to "government" (i.e. someone other than you via force), even when you know government is 100% inept at actually helping people.

    We now return you to your normal "Tony's empty moral posturing" programming.

  • Tony||

    Meanwhile a thousand processes hum along around you, inside your house, outside your house, on the way to work, across continents, to and from space... all funded and maintained by government. It is terribly dishonest debating to point to one failure of government (one that liberals all recognize as such at the time) and then set everything in the world that's going fine to one side as if it's not relevant to your story.

  • ||

    Meanwhile a thousand processes hum along around you, inside your house, outside your house, on the way to work, across continents, to and from space... all funded and maintained by government.

    List them.

  • NashTiger||

    The SEIU, Planned Parenthood, Tesla Motors, Amtrak, Archer Daniels Midland, ProPublica, ...

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    The only part the free market is responsible for is global warming: the biggest threat human kind has ever seen!

    Other than that, government provides most everything.

  • IceTrey||

    You're equating natural disasters and starvation?

  • Tony||

    I'm equating death with death. "Sorry, this form of death was caused by a part of nature that didn't have opposable thumbs, so you're on your own. Because I have principles!"

  • ||

    "Sorry, this form of death was caused by a part of nature that didn't have opposable thumbs, so you're on your own. Because I have principles!"

    Because no one anywhere can do anything about anything ever except almighty Government, which is literally Superman.

  • Tony||

    Now you're just being hysterical.

    Nobody after Katrina was sitting on his roof thinking "It better not be government that rescues me. I'd rather just go without."

    It is whatever we make of it. And people who distrust the very idea of government are going to make bad ones.

  • IceTrey||

    Google "Cajun Navy".

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    Google "Cajun Navy"

    Yep! My 14-foot jonboat and 8 HP Evinrude motor were there, along with a half ton of gasoline, canned food and bottled water, all on my own time, and my own dime.
    The US Army relief leadership was very happy to have us there, BTW.

  • ||

    Nobody after Katrina was sitting on his roof thinking "It better not be government that rescues me. I'd rather just go without."

    No, but many were saying "boy, I'd better get in the boat with that guy whose sailing by right now, because even though I've been assured that the government is on the way and that this guy is running an illegal and therefore dangerous rescue operation, only a fool would count on the government to come through!"

  • NashTiger||

    If we are equating death to death, then since Tony won't come out and say he is scurred of Big Business, lets look at the 20th Century Scorecard

    Big Government = more than 100 Million Deaths

    Big Business = a few thousand, maybe?

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I have also asked libertarians several pointed questions to which they have never been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

    I call that "Winning!"

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    You want moral brownie points for making a frowny face when you hear about starving children, yet would forbid human beings from mobilizing anything nearly useful enough to actually deal with the problem.

    Odd assertion, Tony, considering I'm virtually certain Square = Circle is as pro-free-farmer, pro-free-shipper and pro-free-cook as he is pro-free-business in general, and those are the folks who keep children from starving. If government were capable of preventing starvation, all North Koreans would be as fat as Kim Jong Un, and Venezuela wouldn't be supplementing their diets on mud.

  • damikesc||

    You just don't want to address them by means that are capable of addressing them. You want moral brownie points for making a frowny face when you hear about starving children, yet would forbid human beings from mobilizing anything nearly useful enough to actually deal with the problem.

    But, Tony, virtually every single famine ever was caused by governments. Specifically to punish "bad people". When I was younger, it was Ethiopia. Who got plenty of food, but the government took it. Venezuela has a famine, due to government. Ditto n. Korea. NATURAL famines are exceedingly rare.

    And when bad shit happens, private initiative tends to be done more professionally and quickly than government action.

  • ace_m82||

    262 million UNARMED people killed by governments in 100 years:

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Listen: sometimes, government wants to kill a lot of people. And who are you to say that's bad, huh? Who are you to say the majority shouldn't get their way? WHO THE F ARE YOU?

    If killing a rapist is good, then why isn't killing a few more million people that democracy may call for, huh?

  • CE||

    Start with the biggest robber first.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Because. We. Are. Minarchists.

    We recognize there is a proper role for limited government.

    It's really not that hard, and they'd have common cause with Republicans on the size of government, except Republicans believe in perpetual wars of aggression, the ability of the USA to spread democracy by creating millions of corpses, the need for Medicare and Social Security, as well as the need for Obamacare.

  • BLPoG||

    Speak for yourself. Minarchy is a sham. Arguing that the state should create and enforce law is at least as dumb as arguing that the state should manufacture deoderant, automobiles, or bread. The state doesn't have the computational capacity to efficiently solve for good law.

    The minarchist position in a nutshell: "I only want socialism for the most important things!"

  • IceTrey||

    A minarchist government would be prohibited from initiating force therefore its only function would be to defend individual negative liberty with the retaliatory use of force.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So in a court to hear property claims, a judge can demand order and use force to back up said social rules?

  • Paloma||

    So how would you efficiently solve for good law?

  • BLPoG||

    A polycentric legal system

  • Paloma||

    As in civil war?

  • lulz farmer||

    He buys a bronze membership with a private law enforcement entity, you buy a gold membership. The private law enforcement entity adjudicates on your side because you paid more shekels. See? The Free Market solves ii.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's kind of like Congress works, isn't it, lulz farmer? So, worst case scenario, we end up with the system we have now. But there are many reasons to believe why that could be prevented in a polycentric law society, and hence why that would be a more just system.

  • BLPoG||

    Right, because all those Lotuses and McLarens mean I can't buy a Toyota.

    Honestly, is that even a serious reply? It seems like it could only be written by someone intentionally trying to detail conversation rather than engage.

    Regardless, the underlying point is that if you don't understand that law is NP hard and that markets have greater computational throughput (and relevance regarding input/output), you don't have a clue. The idea that a government could possible determine law on a non-trivial scale is so ludicrous that it's hard to actually quantify how dumb the idea is.

  • JFree||

    Arguing that the state should create and enforce law is at least as dumb as arguing that the state should manufacture deoderant, automobiles, or bread.

    The state exists for the same reason that private voluntary association exists. Because transaction overhead/fixed costs exist. IOW - it is cheaper to 'join' a bigger entity to provision something than it is to identify, search for and contract for the thousands of things that would be necessary if one were to go it alone.

    The reason the state provisions some goods involuntarily (coercively) is because not all economic goods have identical economic characteristics. Some goods are neither excludable or rivalrous - others have one of those characteristics but not the other. Which means they fit poorly or not at all into a system of property/ownership. Way over-simplistically - some goods have a free-rider problem - at least they do at a particular point in time. Coercion is there to eliminate the free-riding - and thus to ensure that the good in question is produced.

    Anarchism is nothing more than withdrawal into a world of irrelevant theory where one can assume everything and nothing and change those assumptions at will - because the only 'good' being provided is an argument. Minarchism can be as equally irrelevant when it too descends into mere ideology/abstraction.

  • CE||

    What you mean "we" kemo-sabe?

  • damikesc||

    It's really not that hard, and they'd have common cause with Republicans on the size of government, except Republicans believe in perpetual wars of aggression, the ability of the USA to spread democracy by creating millions of corpses, the need for Medicare and Social Security, as well as the need for Obamacare.

    Not ALL believe in wars.

    However, spending? Yeah, they got that needle so deep in their veins it is coming out of their mouth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchy is anarchy.

    If you want government, you are not an anarchist.

  • dpbisme||

    I do not think this to be true....

    Imagine the US moving in that direction but consider that we would stull have the US Constitution,,,, there would still be a federal Government but it would be slimmer, it would still have to have a federal military, and in my opinion many current Federal laws that did nit effect all Americans (say like abortion) would be pushed down to the States. People would live more Locally than everyone being forced by a central government to live the same way.

  • DesparateReasoning||

    Exactly this. Anarchy results in one of two things (in a society of any size):

    In reality, it results in the strongest person willing to use the most force, the most ruthlessly, dominating everyone else, and creating a dictatorship. You want anarchy? Look at Somalia, and that's effectively what you have.

    The other thing that theoretically could happen, if Anarchists had their way, is that people would band together to create structures that pooled their resources, including creating these structures that would protect the weak in some sort of "force insurance". This either wouldn't work and wouldn't be effective at stopping the biggest, baddest guy/group from still doing whatever he wanted, or it would be big enough to work, and what you've effectively created is local government, that you just named something else, and pretend isn't local government.

    Same thing with land and natural resources. There is a finite number of those things. There is no way to efficiently use them without some sort of limited central planning. Sure, private industry can build roads, but with finite land and no central planning, you will get a horrible mess and ridiculous compounded tolls without some way of reasonably planning and forcing some pathways and projects. If you have the power to do this at all, effectively, you have built and amassed power that is effectively at least a "small government" whether you want to call it something else or not.

    /part1

  • DesparateReasoning||

    Anarchists love to pull the "Haha! We win because you can't prevent a small government from growing out of control, and there is no way to prevent some moral or ethical violations if you have any sized government". That may be true, but creating a "solution" that simply cannot and never has worked because it has no way of preventing a bad guy/group from taking what it wants by force is not a solution. Any anarchy-based solution that amasses enough power to prevent that in some sort of centralized or group of centralized powers, is the same thing as a limited government solution, they are just playing vocabulary games.

    P.S. I would love an anarchist to actually make a cogent argument on why I'm wrong. I would love for someone to fix the slippery slope issue of small government libertarianism or produce a viable anarchy-based solution, but so far, I haven't seen anything that actually is practical. Anarchists need the same basic tenet that socialists or communists do: "In a perfect world where everyone was a honest actor who wanted the best for society, my solution would work."

    /part 2

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Under libertarianism, where does the force come from to limit government?

    This probably isn't the answer you're looking for: Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

    But for all the rest of you, the ones who think a golden day will dawn, the courts will decree libertarianism, and everyone else will have to fall in line

    I don't know if libertarians who "aren't anarchists" believe this... ie "the rest of you". I think most of us are pretty realistic in knowing that with the structures we have now, we'll be pretty well relegated to a frustrated minority.

    "If everyone, or nearly everyone, is going to get enlightened, and see the libertarian advantage, then what do you need the courts for?

    That's utopian libertarianism which few actually believe in. You probably won't find many of those here. I suppose utopian libertarianism doesn't have any courts anyway.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Diane, thanks for the answer. I've been asking self-described libertarians that question for years, and you are the very first person ever to take a crack at it. It's almost plausible, too. But I do have a follow-up for you. Why isn't your response about limiting government actually just an invocation of popular sovereignty—which almost all libertarians (maybe not you) regard as illegitimate?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Under libertarianism, where does the force come from to limit government?

    From a government designed to be difficult to alter. The Founders tried by limiting federal powers to 18 enumerated tasks and then saying nothing not on that list isn't a federal power. That's a good start, but IMO they didn't go far enough. Want a new law? Fine, but it will take more than a simple majority -- let's say 75% Want to repeal an existing law? You only need 40% approval to do that. And every five years after a new law is passed it comes up for a renewal vote, and you'll need 66% yea votes to keep that law around. This would be written into the Constitution and not just a rule that Congress can change on a whim. Changing the Constitution itself would be a process similar to what we have now.

  • IceTrey||

    A constitutional amendment like "The government is prohibited from initiating force" would do the job.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Of course, using force in court to hear property rights because someone is 'disruptive' would put a damper on your plans.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Good start, but that would just mean more shit delegated to the executive by a supine congress.

    It's not a new law banning cars, it's an EPA regulation.

  • IceTrey||

    That would be initiating force by making someone act against their will. In Libertopia the government can't make you do anything it can only stop you from violating the liberty of others.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In Libertopia the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

    YOu can be made to do things based on Rule of Law under the Constitution.

  • CE||

    Should have left out the part about laying and collecting taxes.

  • IceTrey||

    In Libertopia everyone accepts and lives by the NAP so no one will even think of initiating force to carry out government functions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertopia is not Anarchy-land.

    You want Anarchy-land.

  • The Last American Hero||

    What libertarian would think that the courts will decree libertarianism? Did you forget to take your meds this morning?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Under libertarianism, where does the force come from to limit government?

    From people who shoot back. Ask King George the Lunatic about it.

    -jcr

  • DenverJ||

    Under libertarianism, where does the force come from to limit government?
    The whole argument under this question, and the paragraph preceding it, mistakes libertarianism as the same thing as anarchy. They are different. Libertarianism doesn't argue for the complete abolition of government. Also, the specific answer to your question is "the Second Amendment".
  • BLPoG||

    PorcFest was great.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What is it about PorcFest that brought out the belly-dancing costumes? Asking for a friend.

  • BLPoG||

    TBH, Reason's selection of folks to interview (or maybe their editing) was not precisely representative of the proportion of different types of people at the festival.

    There were folks who talked about chakras and aligning qi, and folks who drunkenly confided to me "I f***ing hate hippies."

  • ||

    There were folks who talked about chakras and aligning qi, and folks who drunkenly confided to me "I f***ing hate hippies."

    Sounds like a truly libertarian gathering to me!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wait, so we *don't* want the warlords to take over?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Wait, so the warlords didn't take over?

  • John||

    One man's great leader is another man's warlord.

  • ||

    If after ten minutes at the poker table you do not know who the patsy is—you are the patsy.
    Poker Proverb

    When everyone in your domain is behaving with the utmost of respect and civility and business is conducted as you see fit with nary a conflict, strife, or warlord in site, you're the warlord.

  • John||

    Very true.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As a libertarian, one thing I'm sick of hearing is "Koch-funded libertarian organizations only push immigration not because it will result in a long-term increase in liberty, but because it will make billionaires richer in the short term." It's a ridiculous thing to say, but apparently many people believe it.

    The truth, of course, is that Reason and other Koch affiliates promote open borders purely out of a commitment to the NAP (that's the "non-aggression principle" for those who didn't know). Simple stuff, really. Libertarianism seeks to minimize the government's power, and if the government can limit how many people enter the country, it already has near-dictatorial power, which no serious libertarian would tolerate.

    I am supremely confident that, even if the Kochs' top economic advisors told them immigration would decrease their net worth, Reason's relentless open borders advocacy would be unchanged.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders

  • IceTrey||

    Right and when the entire world accepts and lives by the NAP we can get rid of all borders.

  • John||

    And governments along with them. If everyone accepted the NAP, why would you need a government?

  • IceTrey||

    To defend individual negative liberty with the retaliatory use of force.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In Anarchy-land they would need to use force to keep order in courts that hear property rights cases.

    MinAnarchy is a sham of not owning up to anarchy and not wanting Libertarianism.

  • Woodchipper of the Apocalypse||

    I'm a bit tired of Shikha Dalmia telling me that I'm a racist xenophobe because deep down I think having a lawful border might be a good thing.

    That's pretty much it though, because like most libertarians, I'm socially maladjusted and spend more time sneering at people who approch my lawn as opposed to engaging them in conversation, political or otherwise.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'll bet that guy in the still frame of the video is tired of hearing he should get a haircut.

  • Tony||

    Libertarians hate government force, and that's why they believe government should be restricted to caging and shooting people.

    Tired of that one yet? I'm not.

  • Citizen X||

    WE KNOW.

  • IceTrey||

    We hate government initiating force not retaliating with force which includes caging and shooting.

  • Tony||

    It's really a flimsy distinction to hang all of civilization on. I can't have most of the trappings of said civilization because of some obscure gentleman's agreement?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How about this, Tony.
    You may have all of the trappings of civilization that you want. As long as they are arrived at via mutual voluntary exchange. Deal?

  • Tony||

    As long as we recognize that "voluntary" on a scale of many millions will necessitate that not everyone will get his way every single time something is decided. We didn't come to government and democracy because someone had a wacky idea he wanted to try out.

  • ||

    As long as we recognize that "voluntary" on a scale of many millions will necessitate that not everyone will get his way every single time something is decided.

    Why does every decision have to made on a scale of many millions?

  • Tony||

    You said I could have the civilization I enjoy. It requires large-scale projects paid for by large-scale taxing.

  • ||

    It requires large-scale projects paid for by large-scale taxing.

    You keep saying this, and people keep showing you, over and over, that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

    Nevertheless, you persist.

  • Tony||

    And you'll no doubt keep insisting on things that are both unprovable and laughable, such as I could have had an interstate highway system faster and cheaper without government. Or space travel. Or the internet. Or fixing global climate problems. Prove it.

  • ||

    I could have had an interstate highway system faster and cheaper without government

    Cheaper, yes, no doubt. Faster where there was an actual need? Probably. Faster where there wasn't actually any need other than lining the pockets of some land-speculator cronies? Absolutely not. That's a victory for you, I guess?

    Or space travel

    You have space travel? Do tell!

    Or the internet.

    The internet may have a taken a little longer without the government developing it for defensive purposes (one of those caging and killing functions of government you hate libertarians for supporting). So I guess I just agreed to socialist totalitarianism, right?

    Or fixing global climate problems.


    How's that working out?

    Did you know that government didn't have anything to do with creating cars? Modern farming techniques? Airplanes? Modern medicine? Heating and air-conditioning? Labor unions?

    But you'll no doubt continue insisting none of these things could ever have been produced just by people interacting with each other in mutually beneficial ways.
  • sarcasmic||

    There are countless large-scale projects done without government and large-scale taxation. Roads, bridges, railroads, communications, exploration, monuments, hospitals, universities, etc.

    All government does is find the least efficient and most corrupt ways to do these things.

  • Tony||

    All of those things are done by governments and the ones that aren't charge you $20,000 for an X-ray or $250,000 for a BA.

  • ||

    And how much did those things cost before government got involved?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Has to have been like a gazillion for an X-ray, because the government got involved to make things cheaper.

  • Tony||

    There's one truly giant stumbling block for libertarianism in terms of real-world evidence: all the other countries.

    Go where healthcare and higher education are cheaper and see what kind of government you find around you.

  • IceTrey||

    A socialist one that taxes at 75% rate. It's not cheaper the cost is just hidden. That's of course if you can even get the procedure you need. I live in OKC and they are building a second cash only surgical center for all the Canadians who are tired of waiting for their "free" healthcare.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Fuck off, slaver. If you want pyramids, get a job and buy your own fucking bricks.

  • IceTrey||

    It's what makes civilization possible. Humans delegating their right to the retaliatory use of force, excluding self defense, to a neutral third party i.e. government.

  • Tony||

    And that takes taxes to pay for, so you can't say taxes are inherently bad. So if they're not, there's no reason they can't be taken to pay for other common projects besides protecting us from rapists. It's just a stunning lack of imagination masquerading as a political concept.

  • IceTrey||

    Except in Libertopia there is so little crime because only initiating force is illegal that the government would be tiny and capable of being funded by non coercive means. Do you understand ANYTHING about libertarianism or are you being intentionally obtuse?

  • Tony||

    I'll just take your word for it I suppose.

  • lulz farmer||

    In Scandinavia before mass third world migration there used to be very little crime despite their high taxes and lots of government. Sweden used to be the safest country in the world. It's almost as if crime and all of these problems are more complex than some narrative about muh state, muh big guv, muh taxes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    IceTrey confuses Anarchy-land with Libertopia.

  • ||

    If you think some functions of government are necessary, and should be paid for through taxation, then you think all taxation for any purpose dreamed up by any politician anywhere is a de facto good that the world can't live without.

    Tony logic!

  • Tony||

    No, just that we have to employ politics and human brains to decide which things are good and which are bad on their merits and then collectively decide by some process like voting.

  • ||

    Again, why do all decisions have to be collective?

    Do you see no inherent problems in empowering a governing body of 300M people making every single nitpicky moral determination on behalf of every individual for all time? What's the best way for everyone to walk, Tony? Goosestepping in a tight rhythm?

  • Tony||

    You're setting up a lot of strawmen. It must be getting late in the day.

    300M people should make decisions (via elected representatives, preferably) on projects that affect those same 300M people. If a project only affects a few local shitkickers, they can make decisions about it at town council. If it's just your kid being a brat, that can be left up to parenting (until you do something that people have collectively decided involves their interest, i.e., not permitting child abuse).

  • ||

    If a project only affects a few local shitkickers, they can make decisions about it at town council.

    So you must've been against the Obama-era expansion of the definition of "navigable waters of the United States" to include the seasonal wash in our local park that washed out a trail that now can't be fixed because we need Army Corps of Engineers approval, right?

    I'm just trying to get a feel for which wise and benevolent group of representatives has my local-national interests most at heart.

  • Tony||

    I'm not the one taking the all-or-nothing position here.

  • epsilon given||

    Tony: "You're setting up a lot of strawmen. It must be getting late in the day."

    No, Tony, this isn't a strawman. It's addressing the ultimate liberal strawman that conservatives and libertarians always have to face, when it comes to calling for budget cuts. The natural place for those cuts are in things that are secondary priorities: helping the poor, administrative roles, extra bureaucrats, etc. But in order to secure "funding" for these things (ie, higher taxes or debt), the liberal politician will *cut things that hurt*. Police, teachers, firefighters let go. Roads get neglected. Soldiers untrained. National parks closed. Violent criminals released to the streets. (Surely, you don't believe there's so few white-collar and other non-violent criminals out there, that whenever prisons get crowded, we have to release murderers and rapists, do you?)

    Basically, a literal "you don't want to fund my questionable pet welfare programs, so you don't want roads and police" in practice.

  • IceTrey||

    No. Actions between individuals are controlled by objective morality which comes from our nature as sapient beings. Good and bad are not decided by consensus. Under objective morality the only bad is initiating force which violates a humans liberty. Taxation is such an action.

  • Tony||

    But taxation magically becomes OK when it's used to pay for cages and cops and judges.

  • IceTrey||

    Did you miss my comment about how it would be small enough to be funded non coercively?

  • Paloma||

    It really depends on what they are caging and shooting people for, doesn't it? A whole lot of people caged and/or shot is the mark of an authoritarian system. A lot of people caged over non violent victimless crimes is what we have here in our non libertarian USA. Leftists would cage people for hate speech and not paying a "living wage". Those on the right like to go on moral panics about drugs or teens "sexting".

    But locking people up for their own good is a progressive thing, not a libertarian idea.

  • ace_m82||

    I'm an an-cap. Government is twice an initiation of force, once when it taxes, and once when it claims a monopoly on force.

    Government needs to die.

  • IceTrey||

    And if it only claims a monopoly on the RETALIATORY use of force?

  • ace_m82||

    Then it has stopped me from using my own retaliatory force. And in order to enforce that, it must initiate force upon me when I attempt to get my stolen $100 back. It has no authority to do this. I don't consent.

    So you see, your government is just as evil as the other one.

  • IceTrey||

    And if you don't know who stole or even if your $100 actually was stolen and not lost? You just walk up to a random person and knock them down and take $100 from them? Do you think vigilantism leads to a functioning civilization?

  • Tony||

    Vigilantism is just charity taking the place of government.

  • ||

    You really don't see the difference between charity and violence?

  • IceTrey||

    I don't even know what he means.

  • Tony||

    I'm not the one confused about the nature of violence.

    The income tax = unacceptable violence. Putting someone in a cage for stealing a banana = acceptable violence. Letting a person starve = acceptable violence?

    Hey, when we put someone in a cage for violating someone else's liberty, is it acceptable to tax people to pay for his room and board, or do we just keep in in the cage until he starves? Do judges get taxpayer-funded offices, or do they have to work out of their own houses? There's really a lot of stuff to pay for that has nothing to do with retaliatory force just to set up a system that does that.

  • ||

    I'm not the one confused about the nature of violence.

    Narrator: He was.

  • IceTrey||

    Maybe the person wants to starve to death. Force feeding them would definitely be unacceptable. You're really stuck in the old paradigm aren't you. Free your mind and your ass will follow.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Letting Tony starve would be an act of kindness.

  • sarcasmic||

    More people have starved to death from government induced famine than have been saved from starvation by government programs.

  • Tony||

    Well, don't let assholes get in charge. You think genocidal psychopaths will politely refrain from trying to fuck you up because you tattoo NAP to your forehead?

  • IceTrey||

    They'll refrain because I have guns and ammo.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Letting a person starve is inaction, not violence. I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of inaction being violent.

  • Tony||

    I'd much rather get shot than be starved. How much a human agent moves his muscles in the process is completely irrelevant to the dead person.

  • markm23||

    @Tony: "Letting a person starve = acceptable violence?"

    Tony believes that taking someone else's food by force to feed the starving person is violence, but NOT robbing someone is violence.

  • markm23||

    Tony believes that taking someone else's food by force to feed the starving person is NOT violence...

  • Paloma||

    Almost everyone who starves is because someone else MADE him starve. Either a parent who locks up the refrigerator and refuses to let his child eat or a government like China in 1960 where government military actually seized rice from starving peasants. Starvation doesn't come from neglect, it comes from force.

  • damikesc||

    Putting someone in a cage for stealing a banana = acceptable violence.

    Can you cite the example of prison sentences for stealing a piece of produce? Seems like a bit of a straw man from here.

  • markm23||

    Les Miserables began with a prison sentence for stealing food. In Dickens' England, boys were hung for repeated petty theft, and sometimes that would have been a piece of produce. In 19th Century America, I doubt anyone ever spent more than a few days in jail over a banana, but men were hanged and shot for butchering out their neighbor's steer. But all these examples are from over a century ago...

    In more recent times, shoplifters might go to jail BECAUSE THEY WON'T STOP AT DOING IT ONCE. Either a store prosecutes those they catch, or it goes out of business because thieves learn that it's a safe place for them to steal.

  • damikesc||

    I know of no store that would do a thing for a piece of produce. Wal-Mart won't do anything for less than $25, outside of criminal trespassing you so you may never come back.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Good luck with that ace_m82.

    I do find it interesting how many anarchists are here.

  • mschultz||

    I love the idea of the Free State project, but.... why New Hampshire?

  • CE||

    Democracy in action. THey voted on it.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    New Hampshire beat Wyoming in the final something like 57-43... a vote not unlike a beauty contest between Walter Cronkite and Irving R. Levine.

  • damikesc||

    I thought MA evacuees basically fucked NH over royally into a left-wing shitstorm of a state.

  • Darth Soros||

    Warlords? You mean gang leaders with guns who will make us submit to them, take our stuff and maybe hurt us?

    So, no difference, then.

  • IceTrey||

    Can't a warlord be benevolent? George Washington for instance.

  • CE||

    Only compared to the previous warlord. They were hanging Washington in effigy in the Whiskey Rebellion.

  • Nardz||

    Well, this is a shitshow of a comments thread so far.
    I vote warlords

  • Conchfritters||

    This thread is pretty much the reason why we can't have nice things. I'll still take it over the Rs and the Ds.

  • Brandybuck||

    "It's not real libertarianism unless I can be a racist fuck without people criticizing me!" - Some Dude in Auburn.

  • lulz farmer||

    Yeah man if you don't want to live in Somalia you're a moral leper who should have your balls clipped and be beaten to death.

  • epsilon given||

    Frankly, I like libertarianism racism. If I think you're inferior (for any reason, not just racism), then I have two choices for dealing with you: I can refuse to do service with you, or I can pinch my nose, swallow my pride, and do business with you anyway -- and I'll do this, if you're the best offer for what I need, and what I can afford.

    Someone libertarian who is viewed inferior has similar options: to refuse to do business with the race-or-whatever-ist, or swallow pride, and offer proof of confidence (sometimes by offering a discount for services).

    When people swallow their pride, friendships are forged, and whatever-ism gradually dissapates.

    Most racists are statists, though, hence Jim Crow, Nazis (neo and otherwise), and so forth. Such racists aren't satisfied unless they can force *everyone* to be racist.

    The statist anti-racists are just as bad: forcing people to hire based on race, and preventing them from firing based on race, prevents people from finding the best, generates resentment, and reinforces racism.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Yarp

  • thisbrucesmith||

    The only positive I'm taking away from all this is that "Warlords Will Take Over" would make a great title for a future Guided by Voices album.

  • Rock Cowles||

    The funny thing here, Reason says, "libertarians, anarchists, and other self-identified fans of freedom". That would certainly seem to imply that libertarians and anarchists are not one and the same after all. They do seem to confuse the two in the video though. Breakdown through infiltration. Are Anarchists the Libertarian party's Trojan Horse?

  • dpbisme||

    I noticed that there was little distinction also...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think anarchists are using the LP to ride the Libertarians wave and then sabotage the small and limited government until it collapses. Poof, anarchy.

    Democrats wont have them and Republicans certainly wont have anarchists. Us Libertarians tend to be tolerant of alternate views. Anarchist just take advantage of our good nature and undermine things Libertarians support like Rule of Law under the Constitution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are a minority on here evidently.

    A bunch of anarchists who are NOT Libertarians.

    A bunch of lefties like Welch and Gillespie hiding among Libertarians.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Yes. An anarchist is a communist who just tried to shoot a politician. This is the miracle of media transubstantiation.

  • LamarPye||

    Democrats talking to republicans politely saying to each other " I hate the two party system, if there was a legitimate third party i'd vote for them" then glancing at me and stressing " legitimate third party"

    That's what the fuck I'm tired of hearing

  • JeremyR||

    Eh, Democrats want a communist party while Republicans want a more nationalistic one.

    The LIbertarian won't fit either, no matter how much they pander to SJWs, since Democrats hate capitalism. And as long as LIbertarians have an open borders and blame American policy for everything, they'd not going to seriously win Republicans.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Courting Republicans is easy. Just mix bigotry with backwardness, add some superstition and authoritarianism, and garnish with ignorance.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    *poop emoji*

  • epsilon given||

    You keep mixing up the party of slavery with the party that ended it, I see.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    When southern bigots were Democrats, they were a stain on the Democratic Party. When they emigrated to the Republican Party, and became a pillar of the modern conservative electoral coalition, they made every Republican an appeaser of diffuse intolerance and superstition-laced backwardness (except those who enthusiastically embrace the ugliness).

    Carry on, clinger.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That emigration occurred in the 1928 campaign, when Dems realized the Klanbakes and such were costing them votes. Klan support for God's Own Prohibitionists is documented in Herbert Hoover's presidential papers and satirized in HL Mencken's "The Ku-Kluxer"

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Is clothing optional at PorcFest? It sounds like a great place to be nude, like Patty and Selma at Do What You Feel Festival, but probably without the horse.

  • dpbisme||

    So I am a Conservative with leanings in your direction but I am Pro War... Yep, I think had there been no USofA spending it's blood and money that the Soviet Union would be ruling the world.

    Most of the world problems today stem from their actions around the world, from the Middle East, to Africa, and to Central and South America.

    I think that if we take our selves from the World Stage that the Chinese will Dominate the world is short order. History is full of examples of Empires expanding and taking peoples freedom if there is no one their to stop them.

    Besides that I think I am on boards with most of what Libertarians are all about but that is the RUB is it not...

    Libertarians do not really have a Base with a locked in set of ideas that has any control over the "party",,, you might say yes there is but if you get ten (10) libertarians in a room you will find lots of people like me that disagree on ONE or TWO of the main tenants and then the pure libertarians will tell you that you are not really a libertarian.

    Ya, even libertarians have purity standards...

    AND, "Bitcoin is a tool for criminals" because of the LARGE AMOUNT these transfers can be. HA!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Get an education. Start with English, focusing on capitalization and punctuation.

    Backwater religious schooling, or homeschooling with goober parents, does not count.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Whoa. Major intolerance for dyslexics and people who don't learn how you think they ought to. Homophones, Rev. Sometimes they catch even the best of us.

  • vek||

    You are correct that there are some real world situations where pure libertarianism falls flat on its face. Lots of them actually. Which is why I'm not a pure libertarian.

    The way I like to think about it is this: Libertarianism is always the best place to start from. What would the purist version of things look like? Now what are the potential downsides of that? If they're small, or nonexistent, then go hardcore! If there are some downsides that might be soooo bad the outcome is worse than slightly restricting freedom, then what is the maximum amount of freedom you can have, while taking away the potentially horrible outcomes. And there ya go.

    What this usually amounts to in practice is a limited government, with strict bounds on what it can do in most instances... AKA America back in the day. They could have been even more libertarian in some areas, but 1800s USA was pretty damn good. You could basically do whatever the hell you wanted on any property you owned with no permission slip. Drugs were all legal. No income taxes. On and on. And society functioned great. The same could happen today, and it'd be even better.

    As far as the military, we should have a military, and a powerful one... But use it sparingly. That's the answer with wars. Tango with the USSR a bit, sure, because that was for all the cards. Iraq? Waste of time.

  • epsilon given||

    Tony: "You're setting up a lot of strawmen. It must be getting late in the day."

    No, Tony, this isn't a strawman. It's addressing the ultimate

  • epsilon given||

    Gah, I accidentally posted here, when I was trying to reply to Tony! Darn mobile devices!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchy is NOT Libertarianism.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Labels!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The line I'm most tired of is, "If you don't like government, why don't you move to Somalia?"

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    "They* just want to deregulate everything!"

    *one of the most abused words in the English language

  • Hank Phillips||

    Arguments for coercion typically cite a fear of some imaginary future hypothetical. Arguments for freedom tend to cite historical facts and highlight things that really did happen--over and over.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    As a cryptogender drone of color, a qualified internet factition, and vanguard revolutionary, I need to point out to you, an imperialist fascist bigot, that your historical "facts" are merely the LIES of DEAD WHITE DUDES! Check your privelege!

    [does this actually need the "/sarc" or was it obvious enough?]

  • Longtobefree||

    "Never identify sarcasm mister, those who misunderstand leave entertaining posts in reply"

  • vek||

    This does seem like it would be pretty fun to go to one of these years... I could probably have almost as much fun getting wasted and arguing with absolutist libertarians and left-libertarians as I do arguing with plain vanilla lefties in Seattle! Except the libertarians would at least have function brains, so it would probably be a lot more intellectually rewarding.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    If you want to test a person's character, give them power. If you want to test your own character, take the reins. But talk is cheap.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The one I get really fucking sick of is "you have to vote for MY faction of the Ruling Party, because the other faction of the Ruling Party is too horrible to contemplate! Don't WASTE YOUR VOTE!"

    -jcr

  • Michael Cook||

    I am so old that Orwell's book 1984 was barely becoming required reading when I started college. I am shameless about calling out and putting down all things left wing because I spent my life studying the old Soviet Union and the reality of how communism/extreme leftism ended the lives of at least ten times as many people as did fascism from 1917 to Venezuela today. That is an absolute, undeniable fact. Gets little attention in academia or mainstream media because their heritage, however dim and fading, is still Karl Marx.

    Along the way I learned to read Russian and study their Machiavellian ways. This whole thing with Novichok, Ricin, Polonium and other nasty poisons relates to the subtle art of shaping the opposition and rewriting history without getting caught with ink stains on your fingers.

    American leftists today like to demonize "Russians" from our 2016 election onward as one monolithic, highly coordinated group under the tight command of Vlad Putin in the Kremlin. That characterization is nonsense. Russian business activity and gangster activity is so opaque it is usually unclear to Russian heritage people themselves who is working for whom.

    Nothing is as it seems, it seems.

  • Michael Cook||

    meant non-opaque (typo)

  • Michael Cook||

    no, meant opaque after all

  • Michael Cook||

    actually, I am a Russian bot working on the algorithm that if I post enough times, I will lure readers back to a dead thread so I can infect their minds. Will it work?

  • Longtobefree||

    Only if you make half a million dollars a day using the internet (insert link) - - - - - - - -

  • ||

    Subtitles for the Indian guy who spoke? Lol.

    Also, I hate the term 'you're on the wrong side of history' and 'taxes are the price you pay for civilization.'

    If you're literate, you never utter those stupid phrases.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Subtitles for the Indian guy who spoke? Lol.

    I know, I found that kind of unnecessary, but then I would probably need subtitles for a hard Bostonian accent.

  • Longtobefree||

    Does it matter here that the warlords already took over?

  • Longtobefree||

    (enter key, shift key, whatever)
    Look up how much money the feds spent on handguns and ammunition during the reign of Emperor Hussein for non-military departments.

  • Eman||

    Nobody mentions ayn rand, but I get accused of being a fan of hers like every other time I make the mistake of talking about politics with people in real life. I haven't actually ever read any, so that usually leaves me kind of speechless.

  • Longtobefree||

    No need to actually read her work. Try wicked-pedia.
    (Hint: she was not a warlord. But she would have taken one on and won)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online