[darkbrooke]

Ok, with all these semantics I still am not convinced otherwise about libertarian's fatal flaw. Maybe the non-aggression principle allows for the best legislation that maximizes liberties but if non-aggression is followed then the party (and supporters) will be limiting their own power and therefore lose power to the more power greedy party. They must violate non-aggression principles to gain power.

That's the difference between the use of idealism vs a political party. So libertarians would be more idealists than a political party.

Alternatively,

The best solution would be a party that takes into consideration the game-theory of greed and self interest and that each party is greedy first and foremost. Then secondarily they care about the quality of legislation and idealistic principles... and hence, fellows, our bipartisan system.

A simple analogy is trying to find a wolf pack with an egalitarian alpha. You're not gonna find it because egalitarianism (as libertarianism) is naturally punished by the laws of self-interest and greed.

[darkbrooke]

Economics solves this automatically with competition. The greediest seller intentionally lowers prices to undercut their competitor and make higher profits. So yes, the privatization of government services is better. But then...

1. how do we get rid of public government from this current point in history?
2. what political stance should we take if our goal is to abolish government? -its self contradicting.

[Eran]

Maybe the non-aggression principle allows for the best legislation that maximizes liberties but if non-aggression is followed then the party (and supporters) will be limiting their own power and therefore lose power to the more power greedy party. They must violate non-aggression principles to gain power.

Not necessarily. Consider the British (gradual) transition from Aristocracy and Monarchy to Democracy. Clearly, some power elites lost power in the process. Yet it came about peacefully, in response to changes in public perception of legitimacy.

While the rule of kings and dukes was considered legitimate in the past, as it lost that legitimacy, people demanded (and got) democracy.

A similar process can take place if people replace democratic legitimacy with the NAP as the basis for the use of force in society. As that happens (again, probably gradually), democratically-elected politicians would have to (gradually) change their policies and give up power.

[darkbrooke]

I haven't studied British history much but you are suggesting that the party in power would voluntarily give up their power instead of becoming more aggressive and power hungry. That is a large wager, especially for the only remaining global superpower. Your analogy to British history almost feels like an excuse to just keep waiting and hoping for change.

Plus, have we ever seen a country move past democracy in it's developmental process? I don't think we have ever seen any real post democracy societies. Will they ever exist? Is it even possible? What are the conditions and forces that could lead to the emergence of such a future?

[mikema63]

The admins are going to kvetch about your avatar, it's against forum rules, sorry.

[Eran]

Plus, have we ever seen a country move past democracy in it's developmental process? I don't think we have ever seen any real post democracy societies. Will they ever exist? Is it even possible? What are the conditions and forces that could lead to the emergence of such a future?

I don't know. I only hope.

I don't think the fact that we haven't seen post-democratic society is a reason for despair. Everything has a first.

One progress we have made in the 20th century is a complete debunking of central-planning myths. That happened because of the obvious and spectacular failure of all centrally-planned economies. Would a similar collapse of democratic welfare-state economies have a similar effect? I don't know. I only hope.

[darkbrooke]

I don't suggest despair. I just wonder if there is good reason to believe that a democracy can give way to privatization of govt services and what would that transition look like? What is the most effective political and/or commercial strategy for accomplishing that? Does support of the libertarian party aid in that effort? (it is supposedly their end goal right?) Is the libertarian party and strategies effective at accomplishing that task?

Also, what are good examples of government losing power to private entities? The slums of rio de janeiro where druglords own neighborhoods and cops are afraid to enter? The Italian mob and it's ability to trump government in places like Sicily? Belgium's absence of government for 249 days and possible more frequent and enduring episodes to come?

Usually big fish eat little fish until the one remaining big fish no longer has enough little fish to feed itself. Then it just expires and becomes food again for the smallest fish. Does that mean we will see the free-market economy and associated culture expand to every corner of the globe (globalism) and then eventually get dissected by emerging local markets at which point centralized government would become largely obsolete? If so, we have an economic solution to our political problems, not a political solution to our political and economic problems.

[MrAnthrope]

Malatant of Shadow proclaims that rights are not unalienable but may be arbitrarily transferred from A to B just to even things up.

A right is a liberty that WE judge to be justified. (WE must be the Creator.)

He doesn't believe in absolute property rights but mess with his stuff and he'll thump you.

Unclaimed real estate determines the distribution of personal liberty.

He doesn't care about your theoretical justifications for rights of property if they do not agree with his.

If you have principles you are without a soul, selfish, nasty and blind.

Malatant of Shadow advocates the most pernicious form of socialism -- arbitrary rule without principle. He wants to sacrifice your security and the lives and welfare of your children to end the suffering and deprivation in the world. He boasts that emotional response to the wretched unfortunates are positive values and a legitimate reason to rob you of your present and your future. His needs are his justification. His needs dictate your obligations.

This is democracy in action. This is the U.S. of A.

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding” (Louis D. Brandeis).

[darkbrooke]

Does anybody want to acknowledge this flaw in libertarianism?

Or is this flaw dismissed with the naive belief that voters are the ones who choose the outcomes of elections?

Lets consider that:
1. having to choose between 2 poor candidates still gives the population the right to vote but not the right to good policy.
2. the zombie vote is hoards of uninformed and uneducated voters whose sheer number outweigh the educated and intelligent.
3. the middle-of-the roaders who continue to think that the half way point between two opposite extremes is always the optimal solution
4. the bipartisan system which selects the most powerful campainer not the best policy maker or visionary
5. the politically aligned who benefit from corruption and use that as power to retain more power
6. the outrageous power of corporate media to disproportionately report the truth
7. the voter registration scandals and lost ballots and misreported precincts in voter fraud
8. the fact that we never actually pick the candidates who get a chance to run
9 ... the list goes on

voters don't choose the outcome of elections.

Power chooses the outcome of elections.

It's a combination of money, friends in high places, charisma, wit, campaigning strategy, public opinion (power to manipulate the public) things like that. Everybody knows this. So why are we pretending that libertarian principles are somehow above these things?

They aren't. Libertarians are subject to the same natural laws of greed and self-interest as are all the other parties. So until they incorporate that into their philosophy and strategy they're gonna be fighting a losing battle.

[Nunt]

They aren't. Libertarians are subject to the same natural laws of greed and self-interest as are all the other parties. So until they incorporate that into their philosophy and strategy they're gonna be fighting a losing battle.

Of course I don't disagree with that. However, the goal of libertarianism is not to make the world perfect. But to make the world a better placed compared to any possible alternatives. So we don't need to claim that libertarianism will eliminate greed, corruption and many other things that you may dislike. Other policies can't eliminate those either. What I do believe is that libertarianism will perform better and have less greed and corruption.

[Eran]

I just wonder if there is good reason to believe that a democracy can give way to privatization of govt services and what would that transition look like? What is the most effective political and/or commercial strategy for accomplishing that? Does support of the libertarian party aid in that effort? (it is supposedly their end goal right?) Is the libertarian party and strategies effective at accomplishing that task?

The key is to change public opinion. Once public opinion changes, no government (least of all a democracy) can long resist. Will we succeed in changing public opinion towards libertarianism? I don't know. It is an uphill battle. But if we do, the political system will have to change accordingly.

How should we most effectively try and change public opinion? I don't know. I believe there are many possibilities, from working within the political system (e.g. Ron Paul, Libertarian Party) to politically-minded think-tanks (Cato Institute) to educational institutions removed from the political system (Mises Institute) to informal attempts to persuade others (what I am doing here).

Also, what are good examples of government losing power to private entities? The slums of rio de janeiro where druglords own neighborhoods and cops are afraid to enter? The Italian mob and it's ability to trump government in places like Sicily? Belgium's absence of government for 249 days and possible more frequent and enduring episodes to come?

Good examples include the American experiment with separation of Church and State (radical at the time). Privatisation of a large variety of public services, from national airlines to telecommunication operators. Radical reduction in tariffs over the past 100-200 years.

Libertarians advocate a reduction in the scope of government power. No libertarian advocates lawlessness or private criminality. Rather, we recognise that in modern societies, by far the greatest criminal (from a normative, not legal-positive perspective, of course) is government itself. Criminals are bad, but people can effectively combat criminals, and those are clearly understood to be just that - criminals. The problem with government is that it enjoys legitimacy, making opposing it much more difficult.

Does that mean we will see the free-market economy and associated culture expand to every corner of the globe (globalism) and then eventually get dissected by emerging local markets at which point centralized government would become largely obsolete? If so, we have an economic solution to our political problems, not a political solution to our political and economic problems.

Free-market isn't a single fish. It is an entire eco-system within which some fish grow and prosper, while others die. As for your last question, I advocate minimizing the scope of political action at the expense of either economic or other voluntary (non-economic) action.

voters don't choose the outcome of elections.

Power chooses the outcome of elections.

I understand (and greatly share) your frustration with the illusion of democracy. However, "power" can only affect the results of elections to a limited degree. Power is very effective in influencing issues over which voters have no strong view. It can also marginally distort election results through outright fraud, or by tilting the playing field (zoning, anti-third-party election rules, etc.).

But that ability is limited. Observe Libya/Syria for what happens to power when it conflicts too strongly with popular opinion.

They aren't. Libertarians are subject to the same natural laws of greed and self-interest as are all the other parties. So until they incorporate that into their philosophy and strategy they're gonna be fighting a losing battle.

I think you are partially missing the point. Libertarian politicians aren't, in principle, better than other politicians. However it is silly to suggest that all governments are created equal. That there is no difference between Zimbabwe and Switzerland.

Politics is inherently corrupt, for the many good reasons you cited. That is why we libertarian aren't advocating having "our man" in control. Rather, (and uniquely amongst political activists) we are advocating that no decisions (or as few decisions as possible) are made within the political system.

We are not trying to reform the political system, but rather to reduce or eliminate its influence over our lives.