AFAIK wrote:If a country became a libertarian anarchy how would it interact with other countries?
It wouldn't interact with them
as a country. Individuals may interact with other countries in any number of ways.
Would it maintain a seat at the UN or any other international body? Would it have embassies? Would the population have citizenship or passports?
I wouldn't expect a seat at the UN of any other international bodes
as a country. Groups of interested citizens (aka residents - no distinction) may well form local organisations wishing to interact with various international bodies (e.g. through coordinated charitable activity, or even peace-keeping forces)
As for passports, the answer depends on the rest of the international community. It may well be the case that other countries insist on a passport issued by a "recognised government" before allowing entry. If that is the case, a nominal government may well be maintained for this sole purpose.
If a wealthy country became anarchic it would likely experience large amounts immigration which would reduce the price of labour by increasing supply. This would also displace many businesses through an increase in competition.
Yes, I would expect that lowering of immigration barriers coupled with the highly dynamic and prosperous economy of a libertarian anarchy may well attract many immigrants.
This wave of immigration will cause average wages to fall initially, but not necessarily the wages of most of the people previously residing on the country. Their services, if only as native language speakers, would be more valuable than ever. This wave of immigration will help fuel incredible economic growth. The dynamic economy will naturally see turnover amongst businesses, but over time, business owners will learn to adapt to the changing nature of the economy, and failure rate should stabilise.
If there were no restrictions on imports govts that subsidise industries in order to maintain employment may sell surplus production to this population without hindrance. This could lead to local industry going out of business.
No, it won't. It will merely cause those companies operating in industries in which the country has no competitive advantage to be replaced by those operating in industries in which the country does have such advantage.
Basic economics (which even mainstream economists understand) shows that there is always a competitive advantage in one industry or another.
There may be a myriad of social issues if the immigrants have different value systems, practice different religions, speak different languages, etc.
Indeed. Past experience shows that countries can absorb huge immigration waves and incorporate them into the existing culture. Natives tend to have a natural advantage (being wealthier, already owning local property, being more familiar with local language and culture, etc.) and thus local culture tends to have strong "momentum".
The US in late 19th and early 20th centuries, and Israel shortly after 1948, as two examples I am somewhat familiar with, absorbed very large immigration waves without changing their basic culture.
The population of Israel doubled from 1948 to 1950, with the vast majority of new immigrants not speaking Hebrew, and coming from a very different culture.
Would the population prefer to live in a minarchy in order to protect itself and facilitate interaction with others?
As mentioned above, a nominal government issuing passports may well remain an expediency, though that may be its only authority.
JohnRawls wrote:Do you not like hearing the truth ? Your premise was that its a wealthy nation and libertarians.
Whether it is truth or not is far from clear. AFAIK correctly points out that regardless, it is inappropriate for this particular thread. I have never shied away from explaining the preconditions for, and possible operating models for a fully-anarchic libertarian society.
If you, Cartertonian or anybody else is interested in engaging, I'd be delighted.
Now think what will happen if they do that ? 30% of all the population (Elderly, too young and others) will loose those programs, not to mention this will add to 10% already unemployed people, so instead of 10% unhappy people you will get 40-50% unhappy. Note that they are the people that will be part of your privatized police force and military force, who you just cut the benefits from. What would keep them from rebelling against libertarians? I mean you just made their life horrible and the government is almost non-existent. There is no way that something like patriotic duty will keep them in line.
Transition towards a libertarian anarchy will be gradual. Libertarians do not, as a rule, believe in a violent revolution. Rather, we hope and work towards a gradual shift in public opinion, a greater understanding of the true nature of government and the many advantages of the free market.
In particular, earlier libertarian reforms (for example of the kind advocated by the Cato Institute) would have to be successful (and understood as such) before more radical changes (e.g. privatisation of the police and the courts) will be undertaken.
Simply put libertarianism will not work in the modern world.
The parts of the modern world that work best are the parts in which government intervenes least. Very few people complain about the hi-tech industry, for example. Contrast that with the very low satisfaction level in government-dominated industries, from education to health-care, from transportation infrastructure to the financial industry.
Who will provide for them?(There is no government, most money concentrated in the hands of corporations, corporations are not charities) Seriously, who?
Seriously, most people will either live off their savings, or find employment. The small minority that is genuinely unable to support itself will be helped first by family and neighbours, and, as last resort, by charitable organisations.
Note that much poorer societies have taken care of all their needy members for centuries before the invention of the modern welfare state. You speak as though before social security we had elderly people starving in the streets. We didn't.
Do you think without regulations the salary will go up?
Of course. Labour regulations impose costs on employers, forcing them to reduce cash wages. Without those regulations, wages will naturally go up.
Main point of large enterprises is to make it as profitable as possible, not to have the utmost best possible social impact on the society. Bottom line is profit. They will not compete for workers because unemployment makes that impossible and unrestrained capitalist society will never allow 0% unemployment. There is just no utility in that if we just consider profit. The more money you pay to your workers the more money you loose.
That shows a very superficial understanding of economics. First, the vast majority of employees today are earning more than the minimum wage. By your logic, their wages should have been pushed down to the legislated minimum. They haven't. So something is already wrong with your argument.
Second, unemployment isn't a natural state of affairs. Unemployment is excess workers (or, alternatively, shortage of jobs). But in a free market environment, the labour markets will clear. At the market-clearing wages, by definition, supply and demand for jobs will meet.
Somehow thinking that using 19th century policies will produce something becides 19th century social structure is obliviousness.
The 19th century has seen very rapid economic growth, with steep increase in the standard of living of all members of society. That steep increase has slowed down in line with increasing government involvement in and interference with the economy.
Plus where the society will move after that. No laws will mean no enforcement of current rights. We will degrate back to slavery, Our literacy rate will fall because now less-off people will not be able to receive education etc
Welcome to the libertarian forum. You have obviously never been here before.
A libertarian anarchy doesn't mean there would be no laws. Merely that there would be no legislature, and no monopoly organisation authorised to enforce those laws. England has lived under the Common Law for centuries during which legislated law was a small minority within the overall body of law.
Private education tends to be cheaper than public education, and basic education is highly affordable. There is no reason to expect that anybody will fail to be educated due to financial constraints.
I see no gains for the society in long term or short term libertarianism, only larger monetary profits perhaps for large private entities and rich individuals.
In fact, many of the dominant corporations of today would hate to see a move towards a more libertarian society, as such a move would rob them of the benefits of their cosy relations with government (at the expense of the public at large).
artertonian wrote:Libertarianism is totally incompatible with organisations larger than a handful of like-minded people.
Libertarianism merely means that organisations must rely on voluntary membership. The largest organisation the world has ever seen - the Catholic Church - is precisely such organisation.
No libertarian, anarchist or anarcho-whatever has succeeded in simply stating how a libertarian 'society' would actually work. Many have attempted to blind me with socio-economic political science, but no-one has managed to encapsulate in easy-to-read and even-easier-to-understand terms how their ideology could be brought to bear on reality.
You cannot enlighten those who insist on keeping their eyes closed. However, I will be happy to engage you in an explanation of my views on anything from the theoretical foundations to minute practical questions regarding the most radical implementation of libertarianism, i.e. a libertarian anarchy.
Given your current views, however, I would suggest a more gradual approach.
1. Eliminate all government programs except (a) a single negative income tax subsidising low-means members of society, and (b) police, court and military
2. Eliminate (a)
3. Eliminate (b).
My personal bias is openly known; I am an ex-military officer. The culture I have been 'brainwashed' by teaches us things like, "There's no 'I' in 'Team'". For a group of people to collectively achieve something the needs of the one must be subordinated to the needs of the many. Extrapolate that principle out to society and you have something that is grossly at odds with what I understand of libertarian principles.
I am assuming that you volunteered rather than conscripted to the military? If that is so, you and your fellow soldiers voluntarily chose the authoritarian institution within which you found yourself.
Libertarianism isn't opposed to organisation, hierarchy and authority. All it requires is that membership in such organisations, be they military units, for-profit corporations, religious churches or not-for-profit societies, be based on the voluntary choice of their members.
As you should well know from your military experience, an organisation functions much better when its members are motivated and interested. Basing society on voluntary associations makes for a much smoother and more effective functioning.
Thus to my mind libertarianism/anarchism offers nothing beyong happy-clappy hippie communes that have no greater aspiration than to merely subsist. Certainly there can be no nation state.
There can be no nation state, but there can be many form of organisations within society, as noted above.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
....
- By FiveofSwords
- By Doug64