in which brute says things about libertarianism

[Jean]

In regard to how much casualties they suffered from their own rulers, one could argue that defeating invaders wasn't really beneficial to the russians.

[Campitor]

In regard to how much casualties they suffered from their own rulers, one could argue that defeating invaders wasn't really beneficial to the russians.

In would be a hard argument to make. Think about it. Who should I fear most? The government that can potentially kill me versus the foreign army that has already started killing my fellow citizens and forcibly annexing my own land? These arguments can only be made in hindsight and if made in the middle of an invasion, would label you as a sympathizer and traitor.

Back to Libertarianism. I'd much prefer a libertarian society to a society dominated by identity politics. Identity politics are the seeds of tyranny and chaos. I doubt very much identity politics will be an overwhelming trend in the USA because it's diametrically opposed to the capitalist system, the rights of the individual, the right to free speech, the freedom of assembly, and enlightened self interest.

[Jean]

It's an easy argument, a quick search shows that by the start of the second world war, Stalin already killed millions of people. But that's off topic.
I mean that a government resorting to burned land might be correlated with a government not caring much about its citizen well-being. And yes, opposing your government will always get you labels. I really hope for a world where we can oppose something and it would result in debate instead of name-calling.

[Campitor]

I really hope for a world where we can oppose something and it would result in debate instead of name-calling.

Human's are hardwired to respond differently when under attack - history isn't on the side of debating war policy during an active invasion unless the debate is in regards to military strategy. I don't think any country, regardless how progressive or regressive (especially regressive) will entertain total surrender at the start of a military invasion unless the odds are completely and unilaterally on the side of the invader; especially if the country isn't afraid to kill its own citizens.

[Riggerjack]

@ campitor,

You seem to have an internal model that identifies strongly with national identity, and make many assumptions from that. National identity (individual citizens strongly feeling a sense of belonging to the country) is relatively new.

During the French revolution, most of the country didn't speak French in a dialect that could be understood in Paris, and Parisians couldn't be understood in the outlands. Working out tax collection was a fantastic mess, as no real systems were in place, and nobody in the outlands thought of themselves as French. In the US, prior to the civil war, citizens usually identified themselves as being from a state, even to foreigners; much as the most obnoxious of Texans do today. In SE Asia, the mountain people's have been outside of nation states for all practical purposes for all of history.

How people act and react "as a people" is always a statist generalization. Nobody acts or reacts as a people. Though we all model our friends and neighbors instinctually, and such can be aggregated up to the scales you are speaking of, to then assume the motivation of any individual matches your aggregate is to watch the model fall apart.

Which is not to counter any of your arguments, just an area of your model that seems somewhat to be on a shaky ground, from what I have read.

[Jean]

Switzerland is originaly just a military alliance between individuals. This is to me the ideal level of state (a defense agreement with people around me).

[7Wannabe5]

Kind of like how I made contract with my polyamours inclusive of requirement to attempt to rescue me in event of zombie apocalypse?

[7Wannabe5]

@BRUTE:

Could you comment on how the principles/practices/ethics of Libertarianism might best be integrated with the 3 Ethics of Permaculture which are:

1) Care for the Earth
2) Care for People
3) Return Surplus to Earth and People

[Demosthenes]

I believe a recent RPF episode argued that capitalism CAN solve environmental problems because people can vote with their dollars. If people care about the earth, they will find a way to pay someone to do something about it. Same with people and surplus.

I suppose one mild instance of this in action is people getting more interested in organic food /CSAs etc. I don't see how this can stop the bigger problems like the millions of vehicles that are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Boycotting cars and planting trees only gets you so far. Maybe paying your friends to live closer to town so they can get rid of their cars?

[7Wannabe5]

@Demosthenes:

I think most people do care about their immediate environment in terms of cleanliness, aesthetic, and health-factors. However, the purchased solutions are generally along the lines of roach bombs, seasonal bedding plants sprinkled with factory fertilizers, and bottled spring water. I would note that I do not exempt myself from the general population in this regard.

Anyways, my question to BRUTE was more along the line of thoughts on the definition of self-reliance, or the tipping point between the benefits of rugged independence and free trade, in situation where negative external downstream dumping problems have been eliminated.

[BRUTE]

Could you comment on how the principles/practices/ethics of Libertarianism might best be integrated with the 3 Ethics of Permaculture which are:

1) Care for the Earth
2) Care for People
3) Return Surplus to Earth and People

besides a few core tenets like "7Wannabe5 should not kill humans or take their stuff", libertarianism mostly advises on how effective various forms of societal organization are.

so in a way, libertarianism would be a tool to achieve the values of permaculture, yet is theoretically orthogonal to them.

libertarianism says "IF 7Wannabe5 has the goals of Caring for the earth, Caring for Humans, and Returning surplus to both of the above", then the most efficient and effective method of organizing a human society will be to let free markets handle it.

examples would be that environmentalism is a luxury that only rich economies can afford. the biggest polluters right now are countries desperately trying to catch up via their own industrial revolution. being a rich and productive economy also helps develop new, environmentally friendly technology like electric vehicles or solar power.

there's always the risk that the majority of humanity has difference preferences than 7Wannabe5, and therefore her opinion or values will be overruled. but this is not only true in a free market, but any system. the only system in which 7Wannabe5 could "make all humans do permaculture" is one in which she is a dictator, and those typically don't do too well or last too long.

one major thing brute would mention is that pretty soon after humans are rich enough to buy decent food, shelter, clothing, SUVs, and digital watches, they begin valuing the environment immensely. green parks, clean air, no smog - humans love that shit. so a free market, left to its own devices, would very likely eventually lead to a cleaner environment than is currently the case, just by lifting humans high enough on their needs/wants scale to arrive at "clean environment".

in other words, humans who are hungry and cold cannot focus on the long term. the only thing that can give them that perspective is material security.

another important thing is the correct management of externalities. all environmental pollution is in effect a negative externality on certain other humans, sometimes on all. there are various ways to deal with this, from cultural (media campaigns against smoking), legal/regulatory (fines for smoking/dumping chemicals in rivers) to court based (suing polluters).

libertarianism generally says that the unintended consequences from legal/regulatory efforts will eventually outweigh their benefits, and that it is impossible to write laws and regulations in a way that will not eventually become absurdly misused.

an example is the clean water act (?) in the US. intention: probably very noble. clean water is good for humans!

yet it has been absurdly misused by the federal government, banning e.g. software companies from building on land that contains a small stream, with the government arguing that software is an industry and industry pollutes, so the company could not build there because "the software would pollute the stream". brute is only paraphrasing this, but that was roughly what happened.

another one is the interstate commerce law in the constitution. it has been so bended and twisted out of shape that the federal government now uses it to prohibit humans from gardening locally in some cases - because producing food means humans buy less food from their local vendors, the vendors buy less food including from other states, ergo the interstate commerce law kicks in.

cultural efforts and court decisions, on the other hand, have a built-in "the buck stops here" sanity check with at least one human making a decision. that's not a guarantee that it'll always be great, because humans will always human. but at least it helps prevent a runaway system that blindly enforces absurdly unfair, unintended, and counterproductive decisions.

[BRUTE]

oh god, brute just had a disconcerting shower thought.

under Trump, brute, as a libertarian, feels SAFER than under Obama (and certainly Hillary/Bernie/Jill).

[chenda]

the biggest polluters right now are countries desperately trying to catch up via their own industrial revolution. being a rich and productive economy also helps develop new, environmentally friendly technology like electric vehicles or solar power.

This is the key point though - industrial revolutions occured through statism of various kinds, not through an unfettered free market. (Trump appears to well understand this) Cost Vs benefits of environmental protection is only part of the picture.

Market libertarians though tend to ignore this, and construct ahistorical narratives which have to bend to the simplistic 'evil government vs heroic capitalist' narrative.(though most capitalists seem rather unenthused about libertarianism, which goes back to the question as to why its never happened) Hence they reflexively oppose any form of regulation, because regulation is always bad, and market forces are always good. This just leads to ideological thinking and bad decision making.

I don't deny there are more thoughtful and pragmatic libertarians out there, @brute has given a reasonable case, but ultimately it's just seems too hypothetical and futuristic to be taken seriously as an idea.

[BRUTE]

this whole 'it has never happened' thing is just absurd to brute. Classical Liberalism is 80% of libertarianism, and it underlies most modern nation states in the west.

libertarianism has happened on a massive scale, just not 100%.

of course capitalists are not for libertarianism. that's like saying humans like free stuff. of course humans like free stuff. it just doesn't work in the long run.

if chenda finds libertarianism hypothetical and futuristic, brute invites chenda to observe any of the alternatives - soviet union, venezuela, north korea, the list goes on. societies mostly function to the degree and in the domains in which they are libertarian.

[edit]

chenda is right that the industrial revolution was massively biased and influenced by government intervention. most of the pollution that happened, happened because governments decided it was more important to grant special polluting rights to industry than to allow the negatively affected to seek out justice.

so it's likely that a true free-market industrial revolution would create way less pollution. companies could not count on the government to quash those negatively affected by their externalities.

[7Wannabe5]

so in a way, libertarianism would be a tool to achieve the values of permaculture, yet is theoretically orthogonal to them.

libertarianism says "IF 7Wannabe5 has the goals of Caring for the earth, Caring for Humans, and Returning surplus to both of the above", then the most efficient and effective method of organizing a human society will be to let free markets handle it.

That's what I'm trying to get at. The theoretical orthogonality is indicative of possibility of formation of more complete systems model. According to my very cursory (Wikipedia)delve into the topic, the "estate model" from which Smith's "invisible hand" meme was originated, is not all that different from a vacant lot permaculture model. There is some evidence that Smith was being ironic in his use of this phrase, because "the hand of Jupiter" was used by ignorant people in his time as explanation of any unknown cause. IOW, he may have been implying that second order effect should or could be obvious to those who are more intelligent.

One suggested best practice for small holding permaculture is to observe what is already being produced in abundance in your community, and not try to replicate in rigid self-sufficiency. For instance, in "Gaia's Garden" example offered is that your next door neighbor has two peach trees on her property which she never harvests, because she is elderly. Best practice would be to make offer of neighborly service/produce barter exchange. Win-win.

What occurred to me is that if I consider myself to be a member of a global community, there are products being grown or manufactured elsewhere, for which I could also directly barter. For instance, one of my BFF's brother-in-law is a coffee importer/roaster. So, since I trust that he is somebody that would not knowingly be inflicting negative externalities on 3rd parties, if I obtained my coffee from him, that would be like closing my systems loop with knowledge.

In a memoir of pioneer life in my region, the son recounts how his father knew it was a shame and a waste to simply burn all the old forest trees he was chopping down in order to create a road and farm fields, but he did it any way because his prime objective was creation of enough wealth to support his 5 children and help fund their futures. Just yesterday at the garden center, a young man directly asked me for the most obliterating insecticide available, because his prime objective was to remove fleas from a house he had just purchased in order to renovate and flip. He was fully cognizant of the downside externalities, but could not "afford" to care about any downstream ecosystem.

I am not by any means attempting to single these individuals out as evil-doers. I can even empathize with their decision matrices. I do f*cked up shit, because I am too lazy or needy in the moment to look beyond desired result #1, all the time. I guess my point is that it seems pretty obvious that there will be both positive and negative second order effects for society of any individual's actions in alignment with rational self-interest, and even strong theory of net-positivity, perhaps should not be best left "free" in the sense of maybe something like "unexamined" as opposed to "unregulated."

[BRUTE]

well, thing is - if individual humans mess this up, what makes 7Wannabe5 think that government humans will mess it up worse?

it's the same category of error, but with even less feedback and accountability.

similar to "poor schmuck humans can't invest their money right! government better regulate it!"

turns out poor schmuck government humans can't invest other humans' money either. regulation made everything worse by luring humans in with a false sense of security, and removing feedback from banks "too big to fail" ensured that dangerous behavior is going to continue.

[7Wannabe5]

@BRUTE:

I don't disagree. Maybe what I am promoting is something like a government composed of more librarians and fewer police officers. Like instead of getting a ticket, every time you mess up, you will get a stern, but kind, note informing you very clearly about the negative second and/or third order effects of your behavior.

[Riggerjack]

I don't disagree. Maybe what I am promoting is something like a government composed of more librarians and fewer police officers. Like instead of getting a ticket, every time you mess up, you will get a stern, but kind, note informing you very clearly about the negative second and/or third order effects of your behavior.

Wouldn't that be nice? I call this "rules are for fools". Fools make rules to rule other fools. And what you tolerate, you encourage. This system tolerates fools at every level.

Contrast this with "expectations". If someone is close, but doesn't make the cutoff of a rule, their overall performance can be factored into a decision. If someone is close to violating an expectation, he is aware that being on the edge in this way will lose him some flexibility in other areas.

Expectations allows for flexibility, and mature relations. Rules do not. But expectations requires more leadership and judgement on the part of decision makers, and works best in small groups.

Just one more way that scale and humanity are incompatible.

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack:

I think that I agree. I would note that when considering social contract, in addition to rules and expectations, there are also standards. A standard governs your own behavior. For instance, one of my social standards is that I don't date men who don't date me. General rule of thumb would be that holding high standards and low expectations would be practice most conducive to happiness.

[BRUTE]

Maybe what I am promoting is something like a government composed of more librarians and fewer police officers.

an institution with a monopoly on power selects for the most power-hungry participants. all the nice, capable humans are busy tending to their gardens.