Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 181 posts

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#61

Post by gaius »

tome wrote: post #56
gaius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone stockpiles individually for themselves and their families then you have a massive distributed cache that is more resilient that a centralized warehouse that can be bombed. You seem to think the responsibilities of "the state", "the military" and "individuals" are distinct. They're not. Some individuals like to pretend they are, and rely on the government to do X (and some governments play the same game an…

But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.

Libertarians act in the interest of preserving freedom in the long term, not maximizing personal wealth in the short term. That's one of the key differences between Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists. A Libertarian might stand up and say, look, our neighbours our hostile, I really think we ought to stockpile food, and if people are convinced (because it's true) then they'll do it. But the government will not say "we need to stockpile food so we're introducing a stockpile tax". Do you see the difference?

I completely agree that Libertarianism can't be retro-fitted onto any existing human society.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#62

Post by cx01 »

tome wrote: post #58
cx01 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't talk of a military in your first post. Assuming that there exists a military paid for by taxes, than it would probably have its own food reserves. If there is no government military, then private corporations would start offering protection services, which would probably also have food reserves.

I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level. The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted. If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can e…

People will keep reserves big enough, so that they last long enough to rebuild their national food industry. Or as I said earlier they might continue buying domestic products in order to keep that industry alive. Even if most people neglect the risk, there will probably be individuals who keep operating food industries (even at a loss) in hope that in the resulting war they might make huge profits.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#63

Post by cx01 »

tome wrote: post #59
cx01 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I tell you there would be no food in a month, then you wouldn't stockpile some? I don't believe this.

Well it depends on other factors, but that's not the point. In this situation: * Firstly, who's to tell Liblanders that they risk invasion? It's not clear that Libertarianism supports the notion of foreign policy, diplomacy, espionage etc. * Secondly, all the food in the country is coming from Xia. Once demand grows Xia realises that Libland has recognised the threat and invades immediately.

There might be food insurance companies. They would have advertisements telling people of a probable military intervention by Xia and recommend people to buy food insurance in order to be safe. Regarding your second point: The realization that Xia might attack will probably not come suddenly but slowly. So people will gradually begin investing in food insurance. It's unlikely that Xia turns from friend to enemy in a matter of days.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#64

Post by gaius »

tome wrote: post #59
cx01 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I tell you there would be no food in a month, then you wouldn't stockpile some? I don't believe this.

Well it depends on other factors, but that's not the point. In this situation: * Firstly, who's to tell Liblanders that they risk invasion? It's not clear that Libertarianism supports the notion of foreign policy, diplomacy, espionage etc. * Secondly, all the food in the country is coming from Xia. Once demand grows Xia realises that Libland has recognised the threat and invades immediately.

The same way we find out about anything. Companies like Reuters and CNN tell us while the CIA is still snoozing.

It is entirely clear that Libertarianism does support those things and one of the two roles of a Libertarian government is the physical security of the nation and its citizens.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#65

Post by tome »

gaius wrote: post #61
tome wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.

Libertarians act in the interest of preserving freedom in the long term, not maximizing personal wealth in the short term. That's one of the key differences between Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists. A Libertarian might stand up and say, look, our neighbours our hostile, I really think we ought to stockpile food, and if people are convinced (because it's true) then they'll do it. But the government will not say "w…

I do see the difference, I just happen to fancy my chances better under the system where the government imposes a stockpile tax than the system which leaves it up to the market -- even more so when, as I've mentioned in other posts, it's not about stockpiling, but about maintaining self-sufficiency in the face of an alternative that is more "efficient" economically.

Regarding your second paragraph, and completely independently, how do you propose we reach a libertarian society from the position we are now?

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#66

Post by tome »

gaius wrote: post #64
tome wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it depends on other factors, but that's not the point. In this situation: * Firstly, who's to tell Liblanders that they risk invasion? It's not clear that Libertarianism supports the notion of foreign policy, diplomacy, espionage etc. * Secondly, all the food in the country is coming from Xia. Once demand grows Xia realises that Libland has recognised the threat and invades immediately.

The same way we find out about anything. Companies like Reuters and CNN tell us while the CIA is still snoozing. It is entirely clear that Libertarianism does support those things and one of the two roles of a Libertarian government is the physical security of the nation and its citizens.

OK, I'll grant you the existence of the media reporting from foreign countries (although I fail to see how the "What's Xia up to" branch of Reuters makes any money).

Now, a worthy chap sees a report about Xia on CNN and gets suspicious. How's he going to get enough money to mount a publicity campaign warning Libland citizens of the danger?

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#67

Post by tome »

gaius wrote: post #61
tome wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.

Libertarians act in the interest of preserving freedom in the long term, not maximizing personal wealth in the short term. That's one of the key differences between Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists. A Libertarian might stand up and say, look, our neighbours our hostile, I really think we ought to stockpile food, and if people are convinced (because it's true) then they'll do it. But the government will not say "w…

And how do Libertarians ensure that those they share a state with act "in the interest of preserving freedom in the long term, not maximizing personal wealth in the short term" in the particular cases where that may be non-rational?

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#68

Post by [deleted] »

tome wrote: post #58
cx01 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't talk of a military in your first post. Assuming that there exists a military paid for by taxes, than it would probably have its own food reserves. If there is no government military, then private corporations would start offering protection services, which would probably also have food reserves.

I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level. The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted. If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can e…

[deleted]

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#69

Post by gravitycop »

cx01 wrote: post #62
tome wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level. The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted. If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can e…

People will keep reserves big enough, so that they last long enough to rebuild their national food industry. Or as I said earlier they might continue buying domestic products in order to keep that industry alive. Even if most people neglect the risk, there will probably be individuals who keep operating food industries (even at a loss) in hope that in the resulting war they might make huge profits.

People will keep reserves big enough

How big are your food reserves that you have on hand right now? One year? Two years? Ten years?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/abc_doomsday_080812_mn.jpg

You don't tell your neighbors about it, do you? They might say, "Oh, I don't need to store any food. I'll just go over to cx01's house and eat his food."

What would your neighbors think if you told them in advance that they couldn't have any of your food, that you personally sacrificed for in the form of opportunity cost? Would they think that you're not very neighborly? When the National Guard comes around to collect all of your stored food so that it can be distributed equally among your neighbors, are you planning on handing it over peacefully?

http://proliberty.com/observer/20070917.htm

Paul James, 85, standing beside some 200 cases of Mountain House freeze dried food. Purchased and trucked all the way cross country from Oregon in 1975, this "mountain" of food was recently pulled down from where it was stored for 37 years. [...] The year was 1975. At that time many Americans were concerned that the Cold War with Russia could turn hot. People all over the country were building bomb shelters in their backyards and storing large quantities of food.

I was one of them. I didn’t build a shelter, but I did order $10,000 worth of Mountain House freeze dried food

Post reply on HN