Libertarians

[Brad Sallows]

>Libertarians absolutely make a claim to moral ascendancy.

Yes, and we should...

>Namely, the ascendancy of individual preference over the needs or values of the community as a whole.

...for not exactly that reason, but the root from which it springs - an unwillingness to compel others to do our bidding.  ("needs and values" sounds so much better than "demands and desires", doesn't it?)

 

[Brad Sallows]

>In a time of invasion, the libertarian would allow individuals to opt out of the military

He probably would, if he thought the ruling classes were doing their best to send the children of others to die to protect the privilege of the rulers to continue ruling.  The society has to be worth fighting for.  For example, why should any of the people marginalized by a society fight to continue their ill treatment?

>In contrast, a non-libertarian would expect all citizens to do their duty, and risk their lives.

"Duty" covers a lot of ground in wartime.  Not everyone has to be a rifleman, but Canada's past includes many people who were never libertarians who were quite effective at evading that particular duty.  I would grant more respect if the members of the non-libertarian factions insisted overwhelmingly on being at the front of the line at the induction/recruiting centres.

>Under such outside threat, it would be immoral to condone laziness and cowardice.

I think you will find it impossible to make the charge of "laziness" stick since there are a great many things one might do to contribute.  And no one should level a charge of cowardice unless they have already left no stone unturned in efforts to join a fighting unit.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT moral ascendancy, the idea that people are sovereign and their rights are inviolate is indeed much more moral than the idea that people are to be coerced into whatever set of actions that are deemed to be "moral", but this is something that can be promoted by education and persuasion, rather than rules, regulations and armed force (indeed the idea of forcing people to become libertarians is a hilarious contradiction)

A Libertarian nation's armed forces would probably resemble the Swiss citizen militia model, with the primary difference being the citizen solders being willing volunteers rather than conscripts. Libertarians do not dispute the need for the mechanisms of the State for some duties that cannot be performed by individuals, and protection from aggression is one of these. Private armies or vigilanteism would not allow for the impartial application of force against aggression, but simply provide the means for the wealthy or ruthless to use force to impose their will on others; the opposite of Libertarianism. This would also limit the ability of the State to use military power for coercive ends; such a military would be unable and unwilling to take part in an undefined mission like the current campaign in Libya, nor would the libertarian military or government embrace concepts like R2P ("Responsibility to Protect") as a basis for planing or deployment. Such a military could possibly build itself into an expeditionary force to face down existential threats, but for the most part would act as a deterrent against foreign aggression against the homeland.

Once again, there is a profound misunderstanding of what Libertarian thought entails, and I suggest that readers go over the thread before they make any claims about what Libertarian thought actually entails.

 

[a_majoor]

At last! A clear case study of a Libertarian society in action (although the libertarianism is "involuntary", since the State simply ran out of money and shut down its services):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/now-its-getting-serious.php

POSTED ON JULY 13, 2011 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN MINNESOTA CAGE MATCH
NOW IT’S GETTING SERIOUS!

Mark Dayton’s shutdown of Minnesota’s state government is now in its third week, and so far I’ve seen no sign of it. I mean that literally: if I hadn’t read about the shutdown in the newspapers, I would have no reason to be aware of it. Each day, the Minnesota Star Tribune runs an article on some group that ostensibly is being hurt by the shutdown. So far, the ones that have elicited the most sympathy are the people who had planned to camp out in the state’s parks, which are closed for the duration.

This morning, however, the Strib pulled out the heavy artillery with the revelation that bars across the state of Minnesota are beginning to lose their ability to sell beer, wine and liquor:

Hundreds of bars, restaurants and stores across Minnesota are running out of beer and alcohol and others may soon run out of cigarettes — a subtle and largely unforeseen consequence of a state government shutdown.

In the days leading up to the shutdown, thousands of outlets scrambled to renew their state-issued liquor purchasing cards. Many of them did not make it.

Now, with no end in sight to the shutdown, they face a summer of fast-dwindling alcohol supplies and a bottom line that looks increasingly bleak. …

The Ugly Mug, a popular bar near Target Field, doesn’t have enough beer to get through the baseball season.

What is odd about this is that any number of state agencies are continuing to operate, on the theory that they represent “core functions” of the state government. If renewing liquor licenses isn’t a core function of government, what is?

UPDATE: Governor Dayton ups the ante! Now, Miller and Coors say they will begin to pull some of their brands from bars and liquor store shelves because their brand licenses have expired. So far, though, Summit and Surly are still available, so serious beer drinkers can continue holding out. Is it going too far to suggest that anyone who drinks Miller Lite is probably a Democrat anyway?

 

[a_majoor]

Libertarianism as a social movement makes a lot of sense since :

a. People are recognizing that many of the things the State offers are better performed by themselves, and:

b. The Social Welfare State is failing in so many regards that libertarianism becomes a sensible alternative (as opposed to ruthless collectivism, which is really the other choice)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/declaration-of-independents/2011/07/29/gIQAJrUAiI_print.html

Declaration of independents
By George F. Will, Published: July 29

August is upon us, beaches beckon and Michele Bachmann has set the self-improvement bar high. She recently told The Wall Street Journal, “When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises.” The congresswoman may be the first person ever to dribble sun lotion on the section of Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action” wherein the Austrian economist (1881-1973) discussed “the formal and aprioristic character of praxeology.”

Autodidacts less exacting than Bachmann should spill sand on the pages of “The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong With America” by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. These incurably upbeat journalists with Reason magazine believe that not even government, try as it will, can prevent onrushing social improvement.

“Confirmation bias” is the propensity to believe news that confirms our beliefs. Gillespie and Welch say that “existence bias” disposes us to believe that things that exist always will. The authors say that the most ossified, sclerotic sectors of American life — politics and government — are about to be blown up by new capabilities, especially the Internet, and the public’s wholesome impatience that is encouraged by them.

“Think of any customer experience that has made you wince or kick the cat. What jumps to mind? Waiting in multiple lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Observing the bureaucratic sloth and lowest-common-denominator performance of public schools, especially in big cities. Getting ritually humiliated going through airport security. Trying desperately to understand your doctor bills. Navigating the permitting process at your local city hall. Wasting a day at home while the gas man fails to show up. Whatever you come up with, chances are good that the culprit is either a direct government monopoly (as in the providers of K-12 education) or a heavily regulated industry or utility where the government is the largest player (as in health care).”

Since 1970, per pupil real, inflation-adjusted spending has doubled and the teacher-pupil ratio has declined substantially. But math and reading scores are essentially unchanged, so we are spending much more to achieve the same results. America has the shortest school year in the industrial world, an academic calendar — speaking of nostalgia — suited to an America when children were needed on the farms and ranches in the late spring and early autumn. “No other industry,” Gillespie and Welch write, “still adheres to a calendar based on 19th-century agricultural cycles — even agriculture has given up that schedule.”

In the 1950s, A&P supermarkets (remember them? You probably don’t) had a 75 percent market share. What used to be the General Motors Building near Central Park South has an Apple store where the automobile showroom once was. When Kodak loses customers, it withers.

But when government fails, it expands even faster. This is, Gillespie and Welch say, because “politics is a lagging indicator of change,” a sector of top-down traditions increasingly out of step with today’s “bottom-up business and culture” of: “You want soy with that decaf mocha frappuccino?”

A generation that has grown up with the Internet “has essentially been raised libertarian,” swimming in markets, which are choices among competing alternatives.

And the left weeps. Preaching what has been called nostalgianomics, liberals mourn the passing of the days when there was one phone company, three car companies, three television networks, and an airline cartel, and big labor and big business were cozy with big government.

The America of one universally known list of Top 40 records is as gone as records. When the Census offered people the choice of checking the “multiracial” category, Maxine Waters, then chairing the Congressional Black Caucus, was indignant: “Letting individuals opt out of the current categories just blurs everything.” This is the voice of reactionary liberalism: No blurring, no changes, no escape from old categories, spin the world back to the 1950s.

“Declaration of Independents” is suitable reading for this summer of debt-ceiling debate, which has been a proxy for a bigger debate, which is about nothing less than this: What should be the nature of the American regime? America is moving in the libertarians’ direction not because they have won an argument but because government and the sectors it dominates have made themselves ludicrous. This has, however, opened minds to the libertarians’ argument.

The essence of which is the common-sensical principle that before government interferes with the freedom of the individual and of individuals making consensual transactions in markets, it ought to have a defensible reason for doing so. It usually does not.

georgewill@washpost.com

 

[a_majoor]

One of the driving forces behind the Libertarian as a Social Movement meme is the proliferation of communications means. The Internet is the premier example, but the 500 channel universe provides outlets and viewers for almost every POV; similarly the explosion of radio stations and even courier servicees which compete with Post Offices. (The other leg is the explosion of skilled and educated people, who are realizing they can provide many of the same goods and services as governments offer themselves).

The current powers that be are alarmed at the slow dissolution of their powers and privilages via citizens becoming less reliant on the State (much less the actual financial bankruptcy which will eliminate much of their ability to bribe or coerce people in the near to mid future), and are looking at ways to take back their powers and privilages. The author asks the obvious question at the end, my take is the correct answer was discovered by Alexis de Tocqueville when he noted America is a nation of associations. Brittle, slow moving bureaucracies are at the end of their life-span, flexible associations of like minded people working on problems and issues that affect them directly work effectively and well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502214236127064.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5

Repressing the Internet, Western-Style
As politicians call for more online controls after London and Norway, authoritarian states are watching

By EVGENY MOROZOV
[TECHRIOT] Associated Press

Technology has empowered all sides in the London skirmish: the rioters, the vigilantes and the government.

Did the youthful rioters who roamed the streets of London, Manchester and other British cities expect to see their photos scrutinized by angry Internet users, keen to identify the miscreants? In the immediate aftermath of the riots, many cyber-vigilantes turned to Facebook, Flickr and other social networking sites to study pictures of the violence. Some computer-savvy members even volunteered to automate the process by using software to compare rioters' faces with faces pictured elsewhere on the Internet.

The rioting youths were not exactly Luddites either. They used BlackBerrys to send their messages, avoiding more visible platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It's telling that they looted many stores selling fancy electronics. The path is short, it would seem, from "digital natives" to "digital restives."
Related Video

As social media's role in the London riots is explored, British politicians are considering whether temporarily banning or censoring sites like Twitter and Facebook would quell or enflame the tensions, Cassell Bryan-Low reports from London.

Technology has empowered all sides in this skirmish: the rioters, the vigilantes, the government and even the ordinary citizens eager to help. But it has empowered all of them to different degrees. As the British police, armed with the latest facial-recognition technology, go through the footage captured by their numerous closed-circuit TV cameras and study chat transcripts and geolocation data, they are likely to identify many of the culprits.

Authoritarian states are monitoring these developments closely. Chinese state media, for one, blamed the riots on a lack of Chinese-style controls over social media. Such regimes are eager to see what kind of precedents will be set by Western officials as they wrestle with these evolving technologies. They hope for at least partial vindication of their own repressive policies.

Some British politicians quickly called on the BlackBerry maker Research in Motion to suspend its messaging service to avoid an escalation of the riots. On Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron said that the government should consider blocking access to social media for people who plot violence or disorder.

After the recent massacre in Norway, many European politicians voiced their concern that anonymous anti-immigrant comments on the Web were inciting extremism. They are now debating ways to limit online anonymity.

Does the Internet really need an overhaul of norms, laws and technologies that gives more control to governments? When the Egyptian secret police can purchase Western technology that allows them to eavesdrop on the Skype calls of dissidents, it seems unlikely that American and European intelligence agencies have no means of listening the calls of, say, a loner in Norway.

We tolerate such drastic proposals only because acts of terror briefly deprive us of the ability to think straight. We are also distracted by the universal tendency to imagine technology as a liberating force; it keeps us from noticing that governments already have more power than is healthy.

The domestic challenges posed by the Internet demand a measured, cautious response in the West. Leaders in Beijing, Tehran and elsewhere are awaiting our wrong-headed moves, which would allow them to claim an international license for dealing with their own protests. They are also looking for tools and strategies that might improve their own digital surveillance.

After violent riots in 2009, Chinese officials had no qualms about cutting off the Xinjiang region's Internet access for 10 months. Still, they would surely welcome a formal excuse for such drastic measures if the West should decide to take similar measures in dealing with disorder. Likewise, any plan in the U.S. or Europe to engage in online behavioral profiling—trying to identify future terrorists based on their tweets, gaming habits or social networking activity—is likely to boost the already booming data-mining industry. It would not take long for such tools to find their way to repressive states.

But something even more important is at stake here. To the rest of the world, the efforts of Western nations, and especially the U.S., to promote democracy abroad have often smacked of hypocrisy. How could the West lecture others while struggling to cope with its own internal social contradictions? Other countries could live with this hypocrisy as long as the West held firm in promoting its ideals abroad. But this double game is harder to maintain in the Internet era.

In their concern to stop not just mob violence but commercial crimes like piracy and file-sharing, Western politicians have proposed new tools for examining Web traffic and changes in the basic architecture of the Internet to simplify surveillance. What they fail to see is that such measures can also affect the fate of dissidents in places like China and Iran. Likewise, how European politicians handle online anonymity will influence the policies of sites like Facebook, which, in turn, will affect the political behavior of those who use social media in the Middle East.

Should America and Europe abandon any pretense of even wanting to promote democracy abroad? Or should they try to figure out how to increase the resilience of their political institutions in the face of the Internet? As much as our leaders might congratulate themselves for embracing the revolutionary potential of these new technologies, they have shown little evidence of being able to think about them in a nuanced and principled way.

—Mr. Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford University and the author of "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom."

 

[a_majoor]

A light hearted example of libertarian economics in action:

http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/08/22/kim-kardashian-for-president/?singlepage=true

Question:  What’s the difference between a Federal Jobs Creation Program and Kim Kardashian’s wedding?

Answer:  Kim Kardashian’s wedding creates jobs.

Stimulating.

I have no idea who Kim Kardashian is.  I say this advisedly.  It might sound like a boast.  After all, I could’ve googled her before I started writing, but I didn’t, so maybe I’m proud of my ignorance.  Be that as it may, the simple fact is I’m completely clueless as to why Kim Kardashian is a celebrity.

Thus when I asked my wife why helicopters were buzzing round and round above my house this past Saturday, I was not terribly enlightened at being told that Kim Kardashian was getting married somewhere in the neighborhood.  And later, at a dinner party that night when someone remarked on the constant and irritating presence of the choppers, I sounded more knowing than I was when I said, “Must be Kim Kardashian’s wedding.”

It was at this point someone at the party said scornfully, “That wedding cost ten million dollars!  That’s obscene in these hard times with so many people suffering!”

Is it obscene?  Really?  Unless Kim Kardashian is famous for robbing banks, I don’t see why.  Assuming she made her money honestly, then every dollar she has was given to her freely by a public who thought she was worth it.  She, in turn, freely decided it would be worth it to her to spend that freely given money on her wedding.  And because there was no force in operation other than free human desire — the public’s desire to see Kim Kardashian do whatever it is she does for a living and Kim Kardashian’s desire to get married in high style — every single dime spent on that wedding helped create a job — if by a job, we mean a task someone does because someone else wants or needs it done.

Consider it.  No money was taken at gunpoint during the making of this wedding.  No power was exerted over others.  No jumped-up prince of a middle man decided what should or shouldn’t be eaten or drunk or spent or by whom.  No useless government department was formed, taking capital out of the economy.  No time was wasted by officious bureaucrats who don’t have any reason to do their job efficiently or well.  Not at all.  Kim, God bless her, wanted — I don’t know what — flowers, let’s say, by the thousands, and so Flora the Florist set to work providing them in return for her daily bread.  Kim wanted a cake the size of the Ritz, or whatever, and Charlie the Chef got to work on that.  Even the annoying helicopters were freely paid for by someone who, I guess, wanted aerial photos of the nuptials.  And the photographers earned their keep because people who want to see the pics will freely buy whatever magazine they’re in.

In truth, the economy was more stimulated in my little neighborhood this weekend than it has been anywhere in the country during the entire Obama administration.

Free enterprise.  It’s a beautiful thing.  And it all works fine and dandy until power-hunger and pompous self-righteousness gum up the works.  Until some duly elected fathead says, “No, no, Kim, I went to an Ivy League school and I know better than you do how you should spend your money.”  Or, “No, no, Kim, I am the Compassionate and Wise and I know where the need for your money is greatest.”  Or, “We all have to share the sacrifice, Kim, so give me your money to pay for the votes I bought with promises I can’t keep.”  Or, “There comes a point when you have too much money, Kim, so you have to give some of yours to me.”

As long as human beings are free to pursue their desires restricted by nothing but the safety and freedom of their neighbors, there will be plenty of money and plenty of jobs.  You may say it’s wrong for people to live like that — to live, I mean, as they please.  You may say Kim Kardashian’s wedding was garish, for example, or that she should’ve given her money to charity instead or that the public shouldn’t make someone like Kim Kardashian rich in the first place.

But let me ask you this:  Who the hell are you to say?  Who the hell is anyone?  You don’t like the way Kim Kardashian lives?  Don’t live that way.  I don’t.  But I don’t tell anyone else whether or not they should.

The imposition of virtue by force is not virtue.  And it is precisely that imposition — through government entitlements, through government-inspired bad loans, through government over-regulation, through government redistribution schemes — that has so badly damaged our nation’s freedom and economy.

Question:  What’s the difference between the Obama presidency and Kim Kardashian’s marriage?

Answer:  I hope Kim Kardashian’s marriage lasts.

 

[canada94]

I know it hasn't been commented on in a week or 2. But I personally put myself in line with many libertarians around the world from Ron Paul to his son.

It's a form of government that sees less regulatory restrictions, no censorship and let people do as they please. We let society harm itself on government regulated establishments IE Gambling/Alcohol/Prescription drugs

But its a crime to smoke a joint? In the end this is all my opinion and that is why I enjoy the ability to state my views on this site with other people who may/agree disagree with me.

PS: I used the "joint as an example" I don't wanna turn this into a hippy rally

 

[Nemo888]

If Ron Paul was running for President I would vote Republican. The rest look like corporate schills on both sides. Every othe candidate is just a poser in someone's pocket.

 

[canada94]

If Ron Paul was running for President I would vote Republican. The rest look like corporate schills on both sides. Every othe candidate is just a poser in someone's pocket.

He is running for the Republican nomination!

 

[a_majoor]

I think the thing which frightens opponents of Sea Steading and other ideas for self contained libertarian communities isn't so much the Libertarian ideology but simply the idea that people can "opt out" and refuse to participate in coercive crony capitalist/corporatist/fascist/authoritarian societies anymore. Libertarianism as a social movement (home schooling, vouchers, unregulated free speech and free trade over the Internet, distributed Republics etc.) is equally frightening to them, people using these options to "opt out" are people who can no longer be controlled:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/02/libertarians-hunt-humansmdasha

Libertarians Hunt Humans—And Other Tales
The latest hysterical response to libertarian ideas

David Harsanyi | September 2, 2011

With the electorate getting more comfortable with libertarian ideas, a Maginot Line of hackery is being built to keep the barbarians out.

The latest is over at Reuters, where Sally Kohn writes one of the silliest pieces on the topic I’ve ever read. Using Peter Thiel’s seasteading efforts (”sovereign nations built on oil-rig-type platforms anchored in international waters”) as her touch-point she expounds on this “sinister” and “un-American” ideology lurking deep in the dark souls of otherwise “tame-seeming libertarians.”

    Don’t like the idea of tax dollars paying for public schools or highway construction or Medicare—or don’t like the idea of taxes at all? The brave new floating world offers just the solution. And if the self-appointed creators wish it, there would be no restrictions on guns or automatic weapons. Or, for that matter, no prohibition against murder. Pesky “moral suasion”!

Automatic weapons and murder for all! (The Most Dangerous Game starring Peter Thiel as Zaroff.) Was she joking? I can’t tell.

No, I don’t “like” the idea forcing citizens to join a Washington-run health care program or forcing parents to pay for crappy school that fail their kids year after year. But I’ve yet to meet a libertarian who opposes restrictions on homicide. Perhaps I don’t get out often enough. I always knew there were many schools of libertarian thought, all of them having something to do with an underlying belief that an individual ought to have the freedom to live his/her life as he/she likes as long he/she respects the individual rights of other hes/shes. Critics always seem to ignore the latter half of the idea. Imaginary anarchy, racism, and hedonism ensue.

Kohn also informs us that libertarians don’t want roads and would like to abolish FEMA and the TSA—which God gave us in 1979 and 2002, respectively—because if government isn’t helping no one is. (I suspect the folks at the Reason Foundation have probably done more thinking about transportation today than Kohn has in her entire life.)

She tells us that anti-corporate he-devils used to avoid regulation—even the law—for personal gain but today he-devils want to start new countries even as they look to destroy old ones. Never mind, that the modern-day Robber Baron has a better chance enriching himself by buying into government. As long as it’s environmental friendly cronyism this is to be admired.

There are many substantive arguments available in this debate, but it seems that the effort is to either misinform or scare the hell out of people.

Do libertarians like Peter Thiel really want to live in America? (Evidently he doesn’t? Right?) I suppose you’d have to ask him. I’m only a mushy small “l” classical liberal type and I like living in America. But if America becomes a place where government has its coercive hands in every aspect of life and business—the kind of America that Kohn envisions—then seasteading is going to look mighty attractive.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

 

[Nemo888]

That article is rambling and has a whiff of paranoia. Ironically you write better than the article you quoted.

I lived off the grid for about three years on solar. Which got me in contact with all the rural hippies and permaculture folks. I think making your own power and growing your own food is the most radical thing you can do politically. The only problem was the amount of energy you can make. Panels are great for lighting and a shallow piston pump for water. They are not economical enough to do things like heating, cooking or moving a vehicle.

A libertarian society will naturally develop itself if two disruptive technologies come to pass.

The first is energy storage. Traditional batteries are not efficient enough and lack sufficient energy density for their mass. This is why electric cars are still years away. Density is currently increasing at about 10% per year. In about ten years we will be there with conventional batteries. Many supercapacitors are being tried currently. Capacitors store energy by capacitance, not chemically, and the newer ones in theory have over 100 times the energy density of traditional batteries and can be charged in minutes. Their discharge rate will be negligible as well.

The second is energy production. I was able to get my solar install down to around 35c per Kw/h amortized over 20 years in 1999. That needs to drop to 5c or 6c for average people to be able to drop out of the competitiveness of the rat race and keep a comfortable life style. Printed solar cells may be  a step forward. I haven't seen any game changers in energy production yet. Once people can make and store their own energy they don't need the social construct we are living in. That is how I want my freedom in my old age. Their is no liberty without independence.

 

[a_majoor]

You are quite right about new technologies being needed to get off the "grid", although for various reasons I don't think battery technology can reach the  levels needed. We can be agnostic about *what* technologies will work, and even know that we don't need anything more advanced than what we have today. Setting up a victory garden and rainwater catchments is a good way to start.

The key to Libertarianism as a social movement is the ability to bypass the traditional gatekeepers through new communications technologies and the growth of an educated population capable of doing many things on their own without the need to hire "experts". (You still need expert help and advice for many things, but even things as diverse as reporting, making movies or shows, and engineering are becoming accessable to people without lots of capital or even formal training). Naturally the gatekeepers are not happy with the ability of you or I to bypass them...

 

[Nemo888]

I really enjoy reading Chris Hedges.

“"Speculati­on in the 17th century was a crime. Speculator­s were hanged. Today they run the state and the financial markets. They disseminat­e the lies that pollute our airwaves. They know, even better than you, how pervasive the corruption and theft have become, how gamed the system is against you, how corporatio­ns have cemented into place a thin oligarchic class and an obsequious cadre of politician­s, judges and journalist­s who live in their little gated Versailles while 6 million Americans are thrown out of their homes, a number soon to rise to 10 million, where a million people a year go bankrupt because they cannot pay their medical bills and 45,000 die from lack of proper care, where real joblessnes­s is spiraling to over 20 percent, where the citizens, including students, spend lives toiling in debt peonage, working dead-end jobs, when they have jobs, a world devoid of hope, a world of masters and serfs." -- Chris Hedges”

A bit more on speculators gaming the financial system. I'll just post a link.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/09/biggest-bubble-of-all-time.html#.Tola6qcvjLg.facebook

 

[Kirkhill]

Speculati­on in the 17th century was a crime. Speculator­s were hanged. Today they run the state and the financial markets.

The 17th century: ie the century that commenced in 1601 and ended in 1700. 

The Bank of England was founded in 1694 - after the Dutch born Prince of Orange became King of the United Kingdom because of support from English subjects who sequestered funds in Dutch banks. Those banks were safe repositories for funds from all parts of the globe, including France and England.

Why didn't the English put their own money in their own banks - in part because the last of the Stewarts (Stuarts) - wouldn't keep up with the times, insisted in conducting his affairs in gold, just like Louis XIV who bought and paid for him in that currency, and regularly ran out the treasury.

He was convinced that anybody who bought or sold gold, thus depriving him of his divine right, was his enemy.  Those were the speculators that were hanged.

The modern banking system, with easier access to funding more generally available to the public, derived from that struggle and ultimately drove the modern, democratic "E"volution. 

 

[Jed]

Remember the Golden Rule. "He who has the Gold, rules!" as opposed to "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you."

 

[a_majoor]

While the history lesson is very interesting, it has little to do with Libertarian philosophy or practice.

The fact that there is a stable banking institution which is subject to common rules accessable to all is a pretty fundimental foundation stone for Classical Liberalism (of which Libertarianism is one of the branches), this is itelf a subset of the "Rule of Law" (The other foundations of Classical Liberalism being individual liberty and the unfettered ownership of property).

The current frenzy of "Crony Capitalism" that has infected the global financial markets (and which is what you are decrying) is a result of moving away from a firm foundation of the "Rule of Law" and making exceptions on the basis of crony support or (essentially) whim. You can insulate yourself to some extent by moving your wealth into other forms and conducting your banking through alternative means (Coops are a good place to start, but an entire ecology of alternative finincial institutions is growing and evolving, from PayPal to Hawala networks).

 

[a_majoor]

A clearing house for students interested in lerning the theory and practice of Libertarianism: http://www.libertarianism.org/

 

[Nemo888]

Interesting talk on the paradox of choice.  Too many choices can lead to paralysis and regret. The downside of liberty.

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

 

[a_majoor]

The Libertarian as a Social Movement meme is explained in more depth here. I believe rather than becoming an independent political movement the greater bulk of the Libertarian as a Social Movement activists will move into mainstream politics and parties and shift them away from increasing State power and towards the fundimental issues of libertarianism (what is the role of the State? How can the State best protect and promote individual liberty? How can the State provide an environment to encourage and allow voluntary cooperation between individuals to flourish?):

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/03/02/where-are-all-the-libertarians-coming-from/

Where are all the libertarians coming from?

By Anton Howes
Notebook - A selection of Independent views -, Opinion
Friday, 2 March 2012 at 9:59 am

There’s a silent revolution happening on campuses across the world. Libertarian activism is on the rise. Political figures like Ron Paul have started to draw huge support from younger voters, but the trend seems to be much deeper and more sustained than any single political campaign. Rather than simply throwing support behind individuals and politicians, students are rallying around distinctly pro-liberty ideas and ideologies.

The US has been at the forefront of this change. Even discounting Ron Paul drawing huge crowds to his rallies, purely ideas-based organisations like Students for Liberty have grown rapidly. Its International Conference attracted over 1000 students this February, and while this might not yet compare with some socialist and conservative rallies or conferences, the most astonishing thing is that just four years ago that same conference attracted only 100 people. A tenfold increase should be cause for interest, and the first four-figure libertarian student conference in the world, without any of the politics or rallying around a central figure is unprecedented.

Groups like Students for Liberty have even become confident enough to set up activism infrastructure in Europe too, with the very first European conference last year attracting over 200 people from 25 countries. Generally considered more socialist, with large welfare states and the continuation of radical socialist politics on its campuses, many would have said Europe was a highly improbable place for libertarian ideas to be so popular.

In the UK alone, the number of freedom-oriented student groups quadrupled in just a year from 7 to around 30, and the conferences held by the Liberty League, the UK’s network for young libertarians already attract over 100 people. The presence of these groups allows for all sorts of possibilities. Once they start to use their support to make their voice heard around campus, it will no longer appear as though the radical left is dominant in universities, and this may eventually lead to a new status quo in student politics.

So where have all these young libertarians come from? The underlying answer is that the internet has allowed more rapid transmission of ideas and opinions. Whereas there was once only a solitary libertarian bookshop in London which had to be either visited or written to, the internet has provided the opportunity to read the intellectual forebears and opinion-dispersing bloggers of classical liberalism for free, and instantly.

But that’s not a sufficient explanation. Although ideas may spread, this effect would only amount to lots of dispersed, isolated people being broadly sympathetic to libertarianism and classical liberalism. The appearance of an actual movement depends on the growing infrastructure to gather pro-freedom students together in one place to discuss their ideas face-to-face, form social bonds, and perhaps most importantly of all, show that they are not alone: the most frequent phrase I hear from potential activists is “But my campus is so socialist, I’m probably the only libertarian there!”

This activism infrastructure started with think-tanks and pressure groups spreading the ideas, and even crafting the policy proposals to implement them. But with the advent of dedicated support networks for student societies and young people to bring them together, this has allowed an initially small number of activists to inspire each other, create their own social groups, and consequently expand them even further. Perhaps most importantly, the success of these ideas-based groups is likely to be more sustainable than any overtly political or partisan project. Unlike political party youth groups, they lack the wannabe politicians and careerists, have a much broader appeal across the political spectrum, and aren’t dependent on individual political figures or the popularity of parties.

So it’s a good time to be a libertarian. The policies may not all be going that way just yet, but if the movement maintains its rate of progress, we may soon see student libertarians being a large enough constituency to sway even the politicians.