One advantage about doing it via charity is that if a charity is ineffective, or fraudulent, switching to a new one is easy. Fixing a government full of corruption or inefficiency is quite a bit harder.
Government does have an important role, but it is no panacea.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-newark-schools-p...
You wrote "practically impossible" wrong.
Second, I am unaware of any tenant of libertarianism that says it is somehow bad for people to band together into charity organizations, potentially the very same ones mentioned in the article, and for other people to give money to those organizations. Nothing about libertarianism requires altruistically-minded individuals to literally go out into the streets and start handing out dollar bills to individuals or something. Libertarianism is about not being coerced to join organizations, not about organizations existing.
Furthermore, non-transmuted [0] libertarianism is fundamentally against the concentration of communication/power that has caused these parasitic nouveau-middlemen companies to even be a thing!
These principles are slow-acting general concepts, and so they do not address the immediate problem. Obviously if someone is hungry, you feed them first and then figure out how to avoid them getting into that situation in the future.
[0] Every political group starts off with valid critiques and seeking sanity, but the commercially useful parts are then overemphasized to support the status quo power structure. A true libertarian is inherently against large corporations (as there is no difference between a totalitarian government from an all-owning all-contracting corporation), even though they're easily tricked into condoning them.
Wouldn't that limit the freedom of the owners/shareholders to grow their corporation to whatever size they want? And who gets to decide how large is large? The government?
But an underlying philosophy of libertarianism is actually to find mechanisms that don't involve centralized ("state") actors. For one example, if more individuals sought out Free software, the Googles of the world would have a less "scalable" audience.
Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it. If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away.
> If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away.
> Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it
... with the implication that people could choose to walk away from specific laws, which they can but just require a sizable group to do so.
Coming at it from the other direction, a non-violent corporation can still be coercive if it say owns all of the land and you must rent for a place to exist, or even if you own your land it owns all the roads you must sign a contract to travel. Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left?
The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property. But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.
Yes I agree.
So lets assume we have someone who has monopoly on land (like USG) and who is non-violent (unlike USG). How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development.
> The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property.
Agreed.
> But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.
Existence of unlimited contracts does not imply one have to agreed to one unreasonably. That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator).
Also note the contract to remove unlimited contracts would (probably) be unlimited itself.
I assume you really mean non-aggressive (eg a libertarian would respect a masochist consenting to having violence done to them). Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is actually non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG may imprison you (this could be plausibly beneficial, say you wanted to avoid drugs and were worried about temptation).
> How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development.
I fully agree, but this is besides the point I'm making. For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation!
> That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator).
Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
Yes.
> Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG will have the right to imprison you
No, In Libretarian Land no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever. This is a simple objective contract and I expect unanimous consent.
But you can also have have two Lands one support giving up of this particular freedom as part of contract and one simply outlaws it. More choices the better (which also means few govts being true socialist states, is ok). Let the market decide.
> For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation!
You would not need this with Libertarian Government (LG) because LG would be very minimal and limited. Even if LG does a bait-and-switch (possible) other LGs/Govts can trade war. I should point out I dont support there be one global LG but numerous smaller LGs. Depending on one single entity is risky irregardless of its intentions.
> At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
Lets say I sign it. After 5 years relocate to another country B. Then USG claims I owe them citing the signed USC. But for USC to be enforcable, B also have to consent to it. That is, I dont pay just because I signed the contract but because the consequences would be worse if I dont.
Sorry, I chose the wrong word and have since adjusted it. Not "right", but mere "option" - based wholly on the contract you signed specifically agreeing to such.
> because LG would be very minimal and limited
This has no bearing on what I'm saying, since in this example USG is a corporation. There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG, or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract.
> Lets say I sign it... Then USG claims
Don't add another hypothetical twist. If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is (assuming you are currently in the US) ?
Thats not possible. LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG.
> or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract.
Only if its in my interest to do so.
> If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is
Its not. I am probably missing something, mind writing the whole question in one form again ?
In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties. What you're describing sounds more like anarcho-capitalism.
> Only if its in my interest to do so.
In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement. I have no disagreement with what you're asserting here - actually I think it's a good check against overbearing contracts. But we have to share a context in order to have a discussion. The tenets you're describing aren't libertarianism, at least in the US sense of the word. My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.
> Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
If USG is the government then this is not libertarianism. If USG is corporation (ie private party) who is the LG then ? The world ?
Lets say LG=World then is it USG the land owner ? I think not, so I dont have to leave if I own a land.
> In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement.
Even in LG, you may have contacts of any scope but the contract with the LG would be very minimal. USC is not a libertarian constitution.
> My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.
This does not follow from the fact that LG enforces private contracts. Its still upto you whether or not to sign away your freedoms.
Nonetheless, Libertarianism would be big improvement from current state, and only slightly less from AnCap.
(1) Imagine harder.
Get personal experience or talk to someone with personal experience with WIC, food stamps, disability, medicare/medicaid, etc. and you'll find out how inefficient, wasteful, and abused these things are. And I don't just mean by a little bit. I mean by A LOT.
(2) I agree that collective agencies can be more effective than individuals.
But not the government kind that are (a) awfully inefficient and (b) exact their contributions by force. I donate a significant portion of my income voluntarily to organizations of my choice that do good in better ways than writing legally mandated entitlement checks.
Corporations the size of governments are equally inefficient.
Finally, one major way we could make government more effective is to institute a public, national id number and allow data sharing between between agencies. But we don't trust our own government enough to do that. (Many civilized countries do, and it works great for them)
Every other days some article rises to the top of HN about government surveillance.