Has there ever been a libertarian society?

The question has been raised whether or not there has ever been a libertarian society?  If we go by the formal concepts offered by the Libertarian Party, probably not.  But we need to define “what” a libertarian society is or should be.  Which is what I’m going to try to do here.

Politically, a libertarian society should be politically representative of the people who make up the society.  Elective democracies attempt this to a certain degree, the parliamentary form perhaps more than the US political form which is less representative in that it is effectively limited to only two major political parties.  While parliamentary democracies can have proportional representation and have several relatively major parties.  The parliamentary form in this case would likely to be considered more “democratic” than the three-part US form, which is divided between an executive (the President), a legislature (Congress, which is divided between a Senate and a House of Representatives), and a judicial, represented by the Supreme Court.  Going by the writings of the US Founding Fathers, the objective was to create a government with a large number of “checks and balances” and with limitations upon voting and selection of both Senators and Representatives.  As is known to any student of American history, we started out with a system where only those of wealth and property were allowed to vote.  The common people did not have the right to vote at first.  This came some decades later.   Senators were “selected” by state governments, not the people.  The electoral college was designed to alter the popular vote for President to one more representative of the individual states instead of being based upon population voting as such.  This political system is called a “republic”, not a “democracy” in that while some representation was allowed to the people, this was not the deciding factor as to who was to run the government.  In practice usually those who won election were either wealthy or famous.

The closest thing to true representative government was created in Greece over two thousand years ago in the City/State of Athens.  There the citizens decided that electing representatives by vote tended to put into power those of wealth and power who used their position to “better themselves” while in office.  (A lot like today’s politicians)  So the citizens of Athens created a system of selection of representatives by lottery instead of voting.  This considerably reduced the problem of political corruption at least, and as these “selected” representatives tended to more represent the average citizen, it did give a better and more representative government until Alexander the Great showed up and put an end to such things.  If we were to do this today (there would naturally be a lot of opposition),  we could start out with the House of Representatives with the Senate and the President serving as “controls” on the system until it proved itself to be workable.

Most likely these selected by lot representatives would not be in favor of some of the “far right” ideas that now circulate.  Ideas that for the most part now tend to benefit the few at considerable cost to the many.  A libertarian society is also a society where “liberty” is considered important, and taking away people’s liberty is something only allowed after considerable thought is given as to the consequences, both short-term and long-term.  I’m really doubtful that a lot of what is being done now by the National Security Agency, Homeland Security, etc., would be allowed in any society that could be considered to be “libertarian”.  Some level of “security” is doubtlessly needed, but it should be directed towards those whose previous activities have shown reason why they should be watched. We certainly do not need a “security apparatus” similar to that of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or East Germany when it was under Soviet control.  Such things simply do not “belong” in any society that could be allowed to call itself “free”!

I have been in recent discussion with an individual who believes that we need “government” to protect us from racial, sexual, or any other sort of “discrimination”.  That it should be the role of government to give every citizen “protection” from these things.  Of course this would require a lot of “supervision” by government to carry out, and “government supervision” isn’t always the best way to do things as I think most of us have now figured out.  Nor does “government” seem to have any good reasons for some laws such as drug laws, prescription laws, etc.  Especially as these laws tend to be prone to abuse.  In a free market economy, employers pay the level of wages that is required to obtain people to do the work required.  If women, racial minorities are paid less, then it is likely that an employer who does “discriminate” either has good reasons to do so, or will soon lose out to the employer who can hire women, racial minorities for less money while obtaining the same level of work from them.  Having a “cost advantage” of say 10 or 15% over an employer who discriminates would soon give the lower cost employer sufficient advantages that the higher cost employer would soon find it difficult to stay in business.  So if women and racial minorities are as economically productive as are white males, then the employer who made it his practice to hire women and racial minorities would certainly have lower labor costs and would be more successful than the employer who paid more so that he could only have white males as employees.  Discrimination in employment is always economically a mistake unless there is a solid economic reason to do so.  As a matter of fact, employers always hire the lowest cost employee who can do the job.  This is why so many American businesses have moved much of their production to China, as the Chinese do work “cheaper”.  Cheaper enough that lower productively of their labor is overcome by the much lower labor costs employers incur hiring Chinese.

What about issues like health care, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?  Do we need the government to control things?  Obviously health care is presently almost A to Z a government controlled monopoly as it is.  So having government control of health care doesn’t seem to be a good way of going about it.  The FDA allows the sale of drugs here in the USA that can’t be legally sold in Europe because of adverse side effects.  So it doesn’t look like we get much “protection” from the government here.  Social Security came about because of the Crash of 1929 which wiped out the value of most stocks upon which people had been depending for their retirement.  However, the Crash did not affect bonds as much, and insurance companies sell annuities which function much as Social Security does.  The only difference is that Social Security is supported through taxation upon the employee and the employer instead of money set aside by people when they are working for their own retirement.  Currently if you use Vanguard’s index funds you can set up a retirement account based upon 50% stocks and 50% bonds that is likely to do better for you than Social Security does.  Medicare is running increasingly into a deficit state because the cost of US “monopoly medicine” is so high.  Elimination of the monopolistic laws that force up US health care costs would be a better solution.  As it stands, I end up paying out about $1,000 extra a year because of prescription laws which allow my doctor to force me to make unnecessary office visits and have unnecessary lab tests.  A “conservative” figure as if we had free trade in medical drugs, the cost would be much lower yet.  Again, it doesn’t seem that “government” is the solution to this problem either!  And without prescription laws, computer software would be practical that to a great degree would decrease the need to see primary care level doctors for many problems.  Additionally hospital costs are now extremely high because government monopoly.  Without government monopoly, we’d have hospitals operating at various cost levels based upon what was actually needed.  Like back in 1948 when the hospital room rate here locally in Muskegon, Michigan was $10 a day.  (About equal to $100 a day here in 2013)  Of course back then they didn’t have all the “technology” they have today, but not everyone has need of this level of technology either!  A lot of people would be just as well off with 1948′s level of technology as we still have large numbers of diseases that can be treated with “old style” technology.  So only those who have diseases that need 2013 technology need to go to hospitals that offer it.  This would certainly knock down our costs of health care by a whole lot.  Then a lot of people who go to emergency rooms would be just as well served by “urgent care centers” that cost a lot less to operate.  Put one of those in every Walmart and we’d save a hundred billion a year at least here.  Again it does not appear that “government” is the solution as government is “responsible” for the current situation, where health care prices are certainly getting out of hand…  As for the people on Medicaid, without prescription laws and using public computers with “Doctor on a disk” software would be just as able as anyone else to deal with most of their problems.  Again, government creates professional monopolies, and professional monopolies are the reason we have to pay so much.  Get government out of the picture, stop catering to the professions, and suddenly the cost of all of this gets a whole lot lower!  For example, dentists today insist on “saving teeth” (far more profitable for the dentist as a tooth saved is a tooth which will need further service later on).  But we could have para-professional dentists who did nothing but pull teeth for say $50 or so, which is a price that virtually anyone would be able to pay.  Again, government is the source of the problem as Ronald Reagan said.  When it comes to all the professions, government “protection” is why they pay so well.  Without that “protection”, para-professionals would exist who would do the simpler jobs for far less money.  This would also be a great opportunity for lots of people to make a living doing the more simple tasks that are now by government fiat limited to actual professionals.  And their education would be much less costly if we got government out of the educational system too.  We could use a system of certification to prove that a person was capable of doing a task instead of relying on diplomas from government run educational institutions at far higher cost!

Looking at all this, I think anyone will agree that perhaps libertarianism does make sense.  That libertarians, unlike Democrats and Republicans, do have the “answer”!

Mary Ruwart talks about the LP in 2008 and 2012

Reblogged from Libertarian Hippie:

At the 2008 Libertarian National Convention seasoned party activist Mary Ruwart came up just 48 votes short of Bob Barr on the sixth ballot of voting for the presidential nomination. This time around, Ruwart is backing her former campaign manager, Lee Wrights, in his quest to become the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nominee.

During a sit-down interview with Reason outside the convention halls Ruwart expressed concern over the similarities she sees between…

Read more… 85 more words

I have her book. It is simple, easy to understand, and gets the point across very well.  For those new to the ideas of libertarianism, it gets the concepts across without going into a lot of economic and libertarian theory that may not be of interest to those seeking more "concrete" answers rather then forcing you to learn a lot of theory which you then have to apply to the situation at hand.

Why Life Is Better In A Libertarian Society!

Most people are unaware of how poor life is in a “statist” society where government controls so many aspects of a person’s life.  In effect, in a “statist” society you are for all practical purposes, the “property” of the State.  Then too you end up paying “more” for most everything, your employment opportunities are reduced, you pay higher taxes, and have much less “opportunity” than you’d enjoy in a libertarian society.  Plus there are a lot of laws that make criminal acts out of things that are not in any sense “criminal”…

Take the issue of taxes.  You pay income tax, capital gains tax, payroll taxes.  Employers also pay unemployment taxes and their portion of payroll taxes.  Then there are sales taxes, property taxes, taxes upon almost everything when you investigate closely.  My “Penny on a Dollar” financial transaction tax eliminates the income tax and the capital gains tax.  It also eliminates the corporate income tax, a tax which is “passed through” to you in the form of higher prices.  The payroll tax is replaced by investment in an index fund based 50% on stocks and 50% in bonds.  The return is thus greater than what you’d obtain through Social Security and Medicare.  Since you keep 99% of your income, you can afford to make investments of this type to secure your future later in life.  Since business is taxed less, prices will be lower.  There will also be more employment because of lower taxes.  And employers will be able to invest more, thus creating yet more jobs.  Plus people will be able to create their own “work” through self employment, providing services of a sort that today appear to be more and limited by the State for the economic gain of a few.  The way taxi services are licensed today leaves no doubt that the objective of these laws and regulations is not “protection of the public”, but private profit for a few.

As for jobs, our “statist” society prevents people from finding work by restrictions upon who is allowed to do many types of work.  The ambitious find themselves bumping up against government laws and regulations in most every direction.  Various sorts of “statist” licensing are used to restrict access to many occupations which causes both “shortages” and higher prices to the consumer.  It is no longer a simple matter of being willing to work and use what “talents” you might possess, but a matter of first obtaining government “permission” to work in many occupations.  This does benefit the fortunate who hold these government “licensed” because they can earn more due to lack of “competition”.  Good for them, bad for the rest of us!  Also the “professions” generally operate on a basis that certain “services” are restricted to being provided only by those individuals who are “licensed” to provide these services.  That too considerably raises the cost of these services to the consumer.  Take for example the practice of medicine and how prescription laws give doctors a legal monopoly over access to most medical drugs.  Obvious this leads to doctors exploiting their patients through forcing their patients to do various things that put money in the doctor’s pocket.  There are obvious parallels here to the activities of dealers in illicit drugs who charge their “customers” high prices to satisfy their addiction.  Operationally, the professions exploit the rest of us for their own benefit.  However in a libertarian society there is no “licensing”, but certification.  Nor would there be prescription laws, drug laws, or laws restricting services to certain groups.  This means that a libertarian society has much lower medical costs, legal costs, and so forth.  Without drug laws, the international illicit drug industry is put out of business.  With free trade in medical drugs, the cost of such drugs will fall considerably, making it far less costly to maintain your health.  Additionally there will be “professional on a DVD” software that will allow you to obtain information now being kept from you.  In effect you will need to visit professionals far less often, thus considerably lowering your cost of living.  Nor will there be any “shortages” in these fields, so the fees will be less too.  It appears that the reduction in the cost of living because of these things could be as high as high as $3,000 a year per capita, which in turn means that most Americans will enjoy a higher standard of living in a libertarian society than what they do today in a “statist” one.  With no prescription laws, drug laws, “professional on a DVD” software, people will be keeping more of their own money to satisfy their needs than what we have now today!

A libertarian society would not have the aggressive military policies that we see today.  The US has attacked countries like Iraq not because of any attack made by Iraq on the US, but because our government did not like the leader of their government and decided that he should be removed from office by military force.  We have also made war on societies because a small group of people in these countries attacked the US on 9-11.  This is about like attacking Italy because certain members of organized crime came from there!  Also, with less money flowing into the federal government, the incentives to create large expensive military forces suitable only for aggressive war will be removed.  Nor is military conscription allowed in a libertarian society, which may also act as possible deterrent to overly ambitious military leaders or  politicians with the same ideas.

You will note that neither the Democratic Party or the Republican Party has the least interest in making things “better” for most Americans.  Instead we have more laws and more regulations upon what you can and cannot do.  Plus with the Democrats there seems to be a love for restricting people’s’ right to defend themselves against criminals.  Plus the proposals I’ve seen so far ignore the fact that a “gun free school zone” is an open invitation to those with mental problems to carry out actions that result in the death of many children simply because there is no one there in the school allowed by law to have the means of stopping these attacks.  This is much the tactic used by some big game hunters of buying an animal from a local village, tieing it out and waiting with a loaded rifle to kill the predatory animal when it appears that is the object of the hunt.  No, we do not want our children to be “prey” for any human predator that comes by!  The answer is to have armed people trained in the use of arms to stop such things.  Attempting to “outlaw guns” has never really worked that well, as these predators can adapt and try different methods that may be even more difficult to defend against.  In any case, in a libertarian society self owning individuals have the legal right to defend themselves with the most effective weapon available, that being today the small concealed carry handgun.

Unfortunately today whenever there is a problem, someone will always want to “pass a law”.  However the passage of laws does not always solve the problem.  It may make it worse for that matter.  Then we have laws against activities that in themselves are merely economic transactions between individuals that in another context would be seen in a much different light.  There is no reason for laws against prostitution as the action itself is not a crime as long as money isn’t exchanged!  Only a “statist” would support things like this.  Unfortunately we have legislatures full of statists and they love passing laws against things, perhaps sometimes just because they like the feeling of power it provides. The same thing is true in the pornography, gambling, and every other “vice” you can name.  If those involved are content with the exchange of money or services, or whatever, what business is it of society to interfere in things?  This is “why” voting libertarian makes you feel good, because you know you have voted “No” against the statists of the Democratic and Republican Party, both of which appear to worship the idea of statist tyranny.  Their only disagreement is “who” will be allowed to do it…

Is There A Right To Commit Suicide?

If we accept the libertarian concept of “self ownership”, the answer to the before question is “Yes”!  Your life is yours.  It does not belong to the “State”.  You are not “property” that exists for the benefit of the “State”.  So if wish to commit suicide, it is your right in a libertarian society to do so.  Granted insurance companies and such can refuse to pay benefits if you do commit suicide (usually one the reasons the insurance company will refuse to pay a claim), but this does not mean that you do not have a moral right to do so if it is your decision, freely made with knowledge of the consequences…  Certainly someone suffering from certain diseases (cancer is one) might wish to “end things” without having to endure more suffering before the disease finally does kill you.

The Issue Of Immigration

Is there a right to immigrate?  Or to emigrate?  To leave one country and then enter another?  Before we get into the issue, let me now propose a question perhaps most libertarians haven’t considered.  Is a country the private property of the people who live there?  Just as a land owner has the legal right to exclude people he or she does not want on his or her property.  Is there such a thing as “collective ownership” of property?  It would appear that there is, in that the stockholders of a corporation can be considered to be the collective legal owners of the corporation.  Obviously a group of people could get together, pool their economic resources and purchase real estate through a corporation.  So there does seem to be a legal basis for the concept of collective ownership of an area of  land.  Actually looking back in history, human groups did lay claim to possession of an area of land.  Land that they were willing to defend if necessary by force from others.

Going by this, it would appear that the collective owners of the land could legally prevent others from trespassing on their land without permission.  That it would be necessary to obtain permission to enter or cross the land under collective ownership.  The fact that the land is under collective ownership does not change the fact that it is indeed “private property”.  The laws regarding private property still apply regardless of the number of owners.  Most likely the individual owners would hire someone to supervise things and hire security forces if necessary to protect their private property.  The size of the property itself has no legal bearing upon whether or not it is indeed private property, not unowned property that anyone may do with as they see fit.  If someone wishes to enter private property, they have to obtain permission to do so or they are considered a trespasser and as a general rule, can be prosecuted in a court of law for having done so.

Next, I ask, what is a country?  A country is an area of land which is inhabited (as a general rule) by people who could be considered the collective owners of that land.  If we look back in history, we will see that the people of the past did consider the land upon which lived as being “theirs”.  The Greeks of the City State of Athens did consider their land as “theirs”.  Land which they would defend against other people not of their city.  The same appears to be true of other historical people.  There was a concept of land ownership that applied to the collective people who lived there on that land.  Jared Diamond in his explorations of the hunter/gathering people of New Guinea found that it was necessary to ask permission of the various tribal groups that occupied portions of the land in the highlands of New Guinea.  So the concept of land as the property of a group/tribe has existed for probably tens of thousands of years.  Perhaps not in the legal sense we use today, but the concept of collective ownership of land dates back a long ways…

What this means here is that the American people do have collective ownership of the area of land within the borders of the United States of America.  In effect all land within the borders of the USA is in fact “owned” by the American people in the collective sense.

Which raises the next question:  ”Who should we allow in?”  It becomes rather obvious when you think about it that we don’t need more “unskilled labor” performed by the uneducated.  We have quite a sufficient number of American citizens who already fall into this category.  Instead, we want more people who will be “assets” to this country.  You will note if you have investigated this that other developed countries have minimum educational requirements in order to immigrate to their country and remain there as a working resident.  The type of uneducated unskilled labor type that comes here would not be acceptable anywhere else.  True, some of these countries do allow in people who don’t qualify educationally, but who come in under “refugee status”.  You will also note that many of these (generally today Muslims) create a lot of trouble for their host country and its own citizens.  Certainly we wouldn’t want this type of immigrant here!

So how do we separate those who will make desirable citizens from those who do not?  One way is to establish a “grade” system where higher education and skills give you a higher status among those who are attempting to immigrate here legally.  These are of course the sort of people that we want as citizens.  People who will be “assets” to us.  So someone who is a college graduate in a field of study that is needed and useful should be allowed in well ahead of someone who does not have very much to offer as a possible citizen of the United States of America.

Contrary to the statements of the Libertarian Party, there is no right to immigrate to another country if that country doesn’t want you.  A country has the right to exclude those who are more likely to end up a “liability” or worse just as a home owner has the right to exclude those people who might do harm or create problems.  And while there is no doubt a right to emigrate from a country, there is no corresponding right to immigrate to the country of your choice.  Other countries have the right to exclude you if they feel that you will not be an asset to your new country, but much more likely just a “liability”.  You may disagree with this, but consider this:  ”Would you allow just anyone into your home?”  The same thing applies to immigrants.  They have to be people useful to the US!

 

 

Recommended Libertarian Writings.

There are a couple of Libertarian books that I consider well worth finding and reading.  The first is “Healing Our World” by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart.  This is an “easy to read” book that uses real life examples of how Libertarianism solves every day problems.  The other book I recommend is “Libertarianism” by Jason Brennan.  Both of these may be available through your local public library, although buying both is a better choice as you will want to refer to these time and time again.  Mr. Brennan’s book goes more into theory than Ruwart’s, but the two together will make for a good start in creating a Libertarian “library” for your own study of Libertarianism minus all the “theory” that you may not be all that interested in, especially now starting out with your own study of Libertarianism.

The “AR” Controversy

Many will say that “no one” needs an “AR” (AR-15 rifle).  That the cartridge is only really “suitable” for smaller game, that no hunter needs a 30 round magazine.  That it is a military weapon designed for the battlefield and should remain there!  On the other hand it could be an excellent weapon for defense against a mob.  It has light recoil and is light in weight, making it suitable for women and even older children to use if necessary.  It is true that it is a “military weapon”, but the men who fought in our Revolution did use “military” weapons in the form of flintlock muzzle loading smooth bore muskets, which in the late 18th Century were the standard “military weapon” used by soldiers of the era.  Militias later on used whatever shoulder weapon was in current use by the military of the time.  The muzzle loading percussion rifled musket of the Civil War era for example.  The 50-70 trap door later on.  So the “militia” arm of today would be the current military rifle.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Second Amendment, Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States of America.  It should be noted when this amendment was ratified, all able bodied men with a few exceptions, were considered to be part of the “militia”.  We did have state militias at the time of the Civil War.  And the concept of the “sheriff’s posse” (as shown in old Westerns) was also part of the militia concept.  The modern National Guard also grew out of the concept of the militia.  So the idea of “the people in arms” has a long historical basis going back to the founding of the country.  The “AR-15″ rifle is a military weapon, and one that would be used by a modern militia.  The National Guard as a matter of fact is armed with the military selective fire version, currently the M4.  All of these rifles, starting with the AR-15 as produced by Colt share the same basic concept and design.  Over the decades of course it has been “improved” and has had the early flaws in the designed worked out so that it is quite reliable today as long as it receives at least a minimum amount of care.  Plus since it is the standard military rifle of the US military, ammunition and parts are readily available.

The Founding Fathers attempted to create a government that was so designed that any one of the three parts (legislative, executive, judiciary) could stop the other two if necessary.  They had sufficient experience with the British system to want a design better designed to safeguard personal and economic freedom from an oppressive government.  As an ultimate safeguard the militia was supposed to be an independent force controlled by the states themselves.  The only mistake they made here was to reject the idea of “demarchy” (representatives selected by lottery which would have given us the world’s most representative government.  One truly representative of all of the American people.  Perhaps the reason they didn’t do this was that they were afraid of the “common people” to the point that they limited the right to vote to a relatively small minority of the people, establishing a system where only the owners of income producing property were allowed to vote.  Even then, Senators were selected by state governments, not the people.  And the selection of the President went through the electoral college, with just a relationship with the popular vote.  This fear of the “mob” (the non-property owning majority) that has “colored” our political system from the start, and made our government far less “representative” than it could have been.  Which could be one of the reasons we’re currently in the trouble that we’re in today…  Especially as our government is now becoming less and less actually “representative” of the American people as a whole.   Thanks to mistaken decisions such as “Citizens United”, we have in fact allowed our government to become less and less representative of the American people than it ever has.  Abuse of the Commerce Clause that has allowed the Obamacare’s ”mandate”.  The first time Americans will be forced to purchase a product produced by private business.

So does the “militia”, the people of America, have a right to possess the AR-15 rifle?  If we look at the writings of the Founding Fathers, it would appear that they do so have this right as members of the “unorganized militia”.  The Founding Fathers felt that if everything else failed, that the militia would step up and set things “right”.  Hopefully it will never come to this, but the American people in arms is the last safeguard we have.

What about the “misuse” to which this rifle has been put?  Guns do not kill by themselves.  They require a human finger on the trigger to do so.  And those who do these shootings all appear to be the victims of mood changing drugs which have been overly prescribed when there were other alternatives that would have been better.  We should also realize that a “gun free school zone” is like painting a target on our children. There should be “NO” gun free zones anywhere.  No invitation to drug crazed lunatics!