Тег: USA

Let’s imagine that libertarianism won in a particular country. A rich country is meant. Where will the state budget money go? Even if minarchism is meant, the budget is still much larger than what is needed for defense and protection.

Oleja)

Why be modest? Let’s take not just a rich country, but the richest one, after all, it’s so pleasant to talk about other people’s money—any socialist would appreciate that.

So, the USA. The fantastic premise is that socialists left the Democratic Party and conservatives left the Republicans, founding their own parties. The remnants of the two parties merged into the United America party, colloquially known as unionists, while many people defected to the libertarians. In 2032, each of the four parties puts forward its own candidate for president, and a libertarian wins by a tiny margin. Seats in Congress and the Senate are distributed roughly equally among the four parties; the Supreme Court, due to the greater rigidity of its formation mechanism, is represented primarily by unionists diluted with conservatives.

Disagreements between socialists and conservatives reach such a scale that conservatives are ready to vote blindly for any libertarian bill on cutting government spending and deregulation just to spite the socialists, while socialists just as zealously support any libertarian bill regarding the expansion of personal rights to spite the conservatives. Everyone except the conservatives supports measures to expand free trade. Pairs of parties barely manage to push through cuts in defense spending and the abolition of the minimum wage, and so on. In short, thanks to such a fortunate layout and the talent of their party organizer, the libertarians steer the agenda, even though they lack an actual majority.

So where will the budget funds go amidst such active spending cuts, booming economic growth, and the sale of federal property, which, although not massive, is still not insignificant? First and foremost, of course, toward paying off the enormous thirty-trillion national debt. Once the national debt is paid off, a constitutional amendment is adopted prohibiting the creation of new debt, and the Federal Reserve is abolished. After that, since the debts are paid, federal taxes are abolished in full accordance with the constitution: each state supports its own senators and jointly rents the office where the senate meets; each party supports its own congressmen and jointly rents the congress office; the places of embassies are taken by the offices of insurance companies serving the interests of their clients abroad; the armed forces work as hires for logistics companies, protecting maritime trade, as well as for oil companies, protecting rigs in Venezuela and other Sudans, and so on. States keep their own taxes, using them as they please: Commifornium goes wild with social welfare, Alaska with national parks, Vermont subsidizes schools, and New Hampshire simply places a huge porcupine-shaped piggy bank in the center of the state capital, and anyone who wishes drops in as much as they like, taking a selfie and posting it to Instagram—and once a year, the state government breaks the piggy bank, counts the money on camera, and based on the amount collected, adopts the budget for the following year.

In short, once you break it, you build it. If it’s possible to cut spending, then cutting income is no problem at all; you don’t have to worry about that.

Porcbank

Two Models of a Libertarian Society

What do you think of this famous lecture by Chandran Kukatas?

Sergey Sushinsky

There is one, but rather significant, incorrect assumption in the text. In both of the social models being considered, there is some kind of absolute impersonal external enforcer who imposes this model. In the Federation, it is forbidden to help without being asked, and some external force suppresses all such attempts; in the Union, it is forbidden to restrict another’s freedom even in the smallest way, and some external force, again, suppresses all such attempts.

But in reality, there is no external impersonal force; all rules are established and enforced by the people themselves. In the Federation of Freedom, a person can intrude upon someone else’s territory and free slaves there, and to those who want to challenge him for violating others’ borders, he can present what he discovered within those borders. In the Union of Freedom, a person can tie up an epileptic, and to the person who demands they be untied, demonstrate a video recording of the previous seizure.

Of course, common sense does not have to triumph in absolutely all cases; it is enough that there is no “external stupid lex” who doesn’t care about common sense, but only wants the law to prevail.

It is clear that Kukatas, speaking of hypothetical libertarian orders, effectively reduced everything to an analogy with the US Civil War, where one side defended the rights of states to establish their own laws, and the other defended the need for everyone to adhere to a single standard of freedom. Kukatas himself took the position of the conditional South in this conflict, which is, in fact, the main provocative message of the lecture.

Federation of Freedom

I am still not sure how to feel about the American Civil War, its causes, and its results. How do ancaps view slavery, voluntary sale into slavery, and the forced liberation of slaves?

анонимный вопрос

It seems to me that the best approach is to treat the events of the past with a certain detachment and not attempt to seriously judge those people by today’s standards. It is a completely different matter if someone today tries to dig up obsolete recipes and implement them in life under the pretext that it is a venerable tradition stretching back centuries.

Therefore, it is one thing to carefully study the complex collision of ethics and law that emerged in the 19th century in the USA, further complicated by the serious difference in economic systems between the North and the South and the immediate interests of politicians. It is another thing to consider, for example, the US Declaration of Independence a harmful document on the grounds that its author was a slave owner. And it is a third thing entirely to consider slavery justified on those same grounds—if Jefferson could do it, why can’t we.

The Southern states had both the legal right to declare their secession and quite valid reasons, as US President Lincoln blatantly violated the fragile compromise according to which half of the newly created states were slave-holding and half were not. So many funds were spent on the war between the USA and the Confederacy that it would have been enough to buy out and free all the slaves, teach them to read and write, and build them housing. More people died than in all subsequent wars in which the USA participated. During and immediately after the war, the powers of the federal government were expanded, and the powers of the states were curtailed. In short, the war was a huge tragedy, and of course, an outcome in which the market, rather than war, decided the fate of slavery would have personally suited me much better.

That is precisely why I have no theoretical objections to people voluntarily entering into relationships that might seem like slavery to someone else. But likewise, I have nothing against private abolitionism, if the abolitionist provides convincing evidence of the involuntary nature of the slave state. Nevertheless, I would prefer such activism to take place through means of moral pressure rather than through violence, because you don’t want it to be like the Civil War!

You can achieve more with a kind word and a gun than with a gun alone. It is believed that this phrase was invented only in the 20th century, and it is a great pity that Lincoln, who lived in the 19th century, did not think of it himself. My sympathy is completely sincere: after all, this guy paid with his life for his policies.

Here is another person who paid with his life for his abolitionism, but at least he killed fewer innocent bystanders

Among our libertarians, there is much talk and many jokes about contract slavery. However, how is this possible from the point of view of libertarianism? After all, I cannot transfer my will, body, and mind to anyone—they belong only to me, and regardless of my desire, I will not be able to conclude a slave contract. Or can I?

anonymous question

I dislike lapsing into academicism, which is why I try to attract experts who aren’t prone to it. Regarding contract slavery, I recommend reading LJ-user Artyom Zheleznov under the tags slavery, slave ownership, and slave trade.

The guy positions himself not only as a theorist but also as a practitioner in this industry, which gives his delivery an additional freshness.

I’ll provide a mix of his points and my own thoughts.

Let’s define a slave as a subject coerced into a particular activity, and a slave owner as the person or organization that is the ultimate beneficiary of the slave’s forced activity. I should note that coercion to labor specifically is not the defining characteristic of slavery—it is enough, for example, that a slave is forced to live where specified, eat what is given, and follow a routine imposed by the slave owner. Similarly, whether the slave owner derives profit from the slave is not fundamental. A slave can be loss-making and yet still be in slavery.

In the modern world, private slave ownership seems to be permitted only in Morocco, while state slavery, conversely, is legalized everywhere. A person becomes a slave by entering prison, a conscript army, or an orphanage. Whether an Australian citizen, obliged to come and vote in elections, is considered a slave is a debatable question. I would rather define this as a labor obligation that can be bought off.

What is the difference between slavery and wage labor? A slave, by default, has no right to negotiate the amount of their remuneration with the slave owner, nor do they have the right to unilaterally terminate the relationship.

Now, let’s move on to contract slavery. This is a type of slavery that arises as a result of concluding a contract, that is, voluntarily. Thus, at the moment the deal is struck, each party believes they are gaining more than they are losing.

For example, Irish people fleeing famine to the United States in the 19th century could not afford the trip, so they sold themselves into slavery. In the States, they were bought by some private individual, and under the contract, the slaves were obliged to work for them for an agreed term. You will agree that such a model was beneficial for all participants of the deal. The emigrant bought their life and a ticket at the cost of a temporary limitation of freedom. The captain received money only if he delivered the indentured slave to the other shore. The slave owner received cheap labor, which would pay off only if the slave remained capable of working for the entire term specified in the contract.

I will note that voluntary slavery does not mean the sale of the body, mind, and will, even if the contract is lifelong rather than term-limited; this is precisely why it does not contradict libertarian principles. Contract slavery simply means coercion to perform activities at the request of the slave owner, in accordance with the contract. Retaining freedom of will, a slave can always deem further existence in slavery unacceptable and begin to sabotage the master’s instructions and take actions toward their own liberation. If they can convince the master to enter into a new deal—where, on one hand, the condition is liberation, and on the other, some benefit unattainable under the current slave contract—then obtaining freedom is entirely realistic.

The most innocent variety of slavery is erotic games between a dominant and a submissive. By contract, the submissive may be coerced by the dominant into anything, but the contract can be terminated or suspended at the will of either party.

The most disgusting variety of slavery is, of course, state slavery. Slaves come to the state for free; the state does not care about profit and is not interested in the preservation of the slaves—and therefore there is no cruelty that it could not easily exhibit toward them while remaining completely unpunished.

What, by the way, about the successes of libertarian parties in other countries? Do supporters from different countries communicate? They could share experience. And why is there no charismatic libertarian leader in the USA?

anonymous question

Of course, everyone has heard that the Libertarian Party in the USA is increasing its electoral success. Over 3% in the last presidential elections, occasionally appearing libertarian governors, senators, and congressmen—in short, a quite respectable and actively growing political force.
Why is there no charismatic libertarian leader in the USA? And why is there no charismatic Republican leader? For the exact same reason—the system is designed so that charismatic politicians achieve electoral success, while parties are led by capable administrators.

Do libertarians from different countries communicate? Yes, although not as actively as one would like. There are international forums, such as Liberticon, there are local conferences with foreign speakers, such as our Adam Smith Readings, and there are private contacts.

Why look far, when just recently a Kuzbass activist traveled to Poland, met with the libertarians there, and upon returning, posted a review text on how things are with the Poles.

Direct coordination of efforts between libertarian parties of different countries is not yet observed, so we make do with the exchange of ideas.

Gary Johnson, 2016 US presidential candidate from the Libertarian Party