
How a Libertarian Paradise in Chile Fell Apart - bribri
http://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10
======
nikatwork
This is the problem with trying to shoehorn reality into a purist ideology:
people. Wherever you go, there you are. Until we learn how to stop being
shitty and selfish, democratic government looks like the least bad option.

~~~
sausman
Democratic government: Shitty and selfish people electing shitty and selfish
people to initiate violence against shitty and selfish people and their
property.

Libertarianism: Shitty and selfish people not condoning the use of violence
against shitty and selfish people and their property.

~~~
vacri
I wish libertarians would stop their crusade to redefine the word 'violence'.
It waters down the word and will eventually make it meaningless if their
version catches on.

~~~
alecbenzer
They're using the same definition as everyone else. People find these
allusions to violence odd because the "violence" in governments is fairly far-
removed, but this is why libertarians bring it up: to remind/reinforce that
this is what's going on behind the scenes.

two relevant videos:

George Ought to Help:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs)

You Can Always Leave: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-
dB-s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s)

~~~
vacri
The use of 'violence' in this context is as stupid as saying a bartender
calling 'Last drinks!' is being violent.

After all, if you stick around and don't comply with the request to leave the
bar, the bouncers and then the police will get involved.

~~~
alecbenzer
You cite an example of enforcing private property rights. And you're right,
violence is used to enforce private property rights.

I'll admit some libertarians might use "violence" to indicate "badness" a
little too readily and/or implicitly in these kinds of analogies (because they
likely _would_ be okay with violence to enforce property rights), but both
thinks _are_ fundamentally enforced with violence.

This admission doesn't make the analogies meaningless. Eg, a libertarian might
say "I'm okay with using violence to enforce property rights, but I'm not okay
with using violence to do [other thing]".

~~~
vacri
Why is it okay to use violence (libertarian definition of) to protect private
property rights, but not to protect public property rights? To take a concept
from a libertarian elsewhere in the thread: why is the private individual
'magic' and the public not?

This is the irony of libertarianism: "Freedom for everyone, but I get to keep
all my goodies!". It's not actually freedom for everyone; it enshrines
privilege with the people who already have a lot of wealth. It works _against_
levelling the playing field and _against_ people advancing by merit. If you're
born into wealth, you're protected by libertarianism - you'll get better
schooling, better networking, better secret-handshake memberships. If you're
born into poverty, libertarianism handwaves and mutters something about
charity (which is always amusing, because private charities have never
amounted to anything like public welfare), but really doesn't care about
helping you improve yourself, giving you the tools to become wealthier. The
poor don't have private property, so libertarianism flips them the finger. If
the poor get shafted by someone's actions, the libertarian answer is "take
them to (the skeletal remains of) the court system", something which the poor
cannot leverage at all. Factory spewing toxic smoke into your house? Take them
to court... oh, you can't afford a lawyer, or at least one that stands a
chance. Pity - there are no regulations on air pollution, because that
curtails 'freedom' and is 'big government' and so the supposed answer instead
is 'take them to court'.

I watched your second video. It's funny that the creator gave libertarianism a
great loophole: "Oh, wars of conquest make it alright if the losers have all
been killed". It's basically hand-waving away the indicated moral issues about
taking things by force and translated means "I get to keep my stuff". It's a
bad video full of leading statements and bad assumptions, though it does have
nice production values. The entire video frames libertarianism as a mechanism
to keep your material goods all to yourself - unsurprising, really, since this
is what really underpins the philosophy.

Fundamentally, libertarianism is about people who want to maintain their
social privileges and wealth, and not actually about fair opportunity. It's an
incredibly selfish philosophy, but it's wrapped in attractive-sounding
rhetoric. In any case, to answer the libertarian question "Why should I help
anyone else _at all_?"(paraphrased, but ridiculously clear on every discussion
regarding tax), the answer is basically "Because you're human, and humans are
social animals that rely on each other; they are not self-sufficient without
extreme effort".

~~~
alecbenzer
> violence (libertarian definition of)

As I said, this is not a special definition of violence.

> Why is it okay to use violence (libertarian definition of) to protect
> private property rights, but not to protect public property rights?

This follows from the libertarian view of rights. People own themselves and
the product of their labor and have rights to trade voluntarily. Public
property rights (not sure exactly what you're referring to by that, but
guessing) tend to conflict with private property rights.

> It's not actually freedom for everyone;

Whether or not what follows this is relevant/worth discussing, I'm not sure
what any of it has to do with libertarianism not being freedom for everyone.
From a glance it sounds like a mix of interesting (but common) discussion
points and straw-men. I'll respond if I have some time later.

~~~
eevilspock
Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they
immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue
the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural
resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product
of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any
strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or
inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[1][2] and
Georgists[3].

The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to
the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an
infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land,
including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.

If as a libertarian you cannot concede these points, we cannot have an
intellectually honest discussion of what a libertarian world would be like.

-

[1] [http://geolib.com/welcome.html](http://geolib.com/welcome.html)

[2] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632)

[3] [http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-
the-s...](http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-sponsor-
of-the-film-the-end-of-poverty-georgism-capitalism-and-socialism/)

~~~
alecbenzer
> Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product
> and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them.

Can you elaborate on this? Ownership is based on _both_ owning the product of
your labor and the ability/right to trade property.

> Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can
> NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be
> treated as private property in any strict sense

I think there are a wide range of views on this among people who call
themselves libertarians. A popular view is homesteading, which says that you
own land once you improve it/mix your labor with it. I think there's some
subtle variations in the view with respect to things like whether you own the
land itself or just the improvements to it or things like that. Personally I
agree that land isn't really something that can be owned. Constructed houses
and the like can be owned and people can have rights to these houses but not
to the land itself.

> The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to
> the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an
> infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land,
> including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying its antithetical
to free market principles to own _anything_ indefinitely? Or just land?

------
wmil
Libertarians, basically by definition, are people with a low group instinct.
So any project that requires large numbers of them to work together tends to
fall apart.

The other big problem with the micronation / charter city idea is that people
get killed over land and water rights in developing nations. Just because you
have the national government onside doesn't mean it's safe to ignore angry
locals.

~~~
aetherson
That may or may not be true, but it doesn't sound relevant to this case.
Despite the headline gloss of a "libertarian paradise," they never actually
got to the point of trying to live together or work together.

Rather, it looks like some people either gave their money to a scammer or a
guy who just wasn't competent to achieve his plans. As the article says, that
doesn't seem like it's anything particular to any political viewpoint.

~~~
zanny
I do like how some of the larger investors still want to give the plan a shot.
Albeit their methods, I think, betray the ideology - so Johnson has proven
himself amoral to the philosophy and thus nobody should do business with him
again, and in the anarcho vision they would collectively boycott and draft
contracts with anyone they associate with to also boycott him, but really they
would have to go find new land since they are acknowledging his possession of
the plot.

I'm more interested in the politics in trying to approach nations to
effectively take a chunk of land out of its jurisdiction. I doubt any state
around today is really privy to the idea, and in this context I doubt Chile
agreed to anything close to giving this town independence.

~~~
aetherson
I guess it depends on where exactly they stand in the grand spectrum of
libertarian-anarchism. I agree with you that it's unlikely that Chile was
planning on giving this area any kind of special jurisdiction, and the
impression I got from the article was that they weren't really expecting any
-- they were just planning on being isolated enough that they ordinarily only
had to deal with other people who were similarly politically inclined.

Plenty of libertarian types are fine with enough of a state that you can sue
someone for breach of contract. I don't know whether these guys were. Maybe
some are and some aren't. Just because they like Rand enough to name the place
Galt's Gulch doesn't mean any or all of them were actually expecting hard-core
anarchy.

------
jackvalentine
I don't understand what was supposed to be particularly Randian about this
project. It just sounds like a poorly managed housing development with a HOA
that selects for political bent rather than ethno-religious (as the original
HOAs were used).

~~~
tjradcliffe
It's Randian because they say it is: Objectivism is a shared mythology, and
like all mythologies it comes to bits rather badly when forced into contact
with reality.

In my experience, most self-declared libertarians aren't very good business-
people, and a surprising number work in institutionally-coddled enterprises
like real estate, medicine and law. As such, it's no surprise that they're
ill-equipped to deal with scam artists.

The Free State Project in the US (which aims at what amounts to a democratic
coup in New Hampshire:
[https://freestateproject.org/](https://freestateproject.org/)) is the only
scheme of this kind that seems remotely plausible, but that's in part because
their ambitions are relatively modest. They want to get enough like-minded
people together in one American state that they can have a significant
influence on the local government. They are aiming at a state that already has
notable libertarian leanings. And they aren't aiming for an anarcho-capitalist
utopia, although some of them are anarcho-capitalists. It's a great democratic
experiment, and while my money is on failure it has at least a modest chance
of success, and either way it should be fascinating to watch.

~~~
MCRed
Objectivism is a philosophy, not a mythology. This was not an objectivist
effort, actually at all. You're giving the article too much credit, it is
pretty much all spin.

> most self-declared libertarians aren't very good business-people

This kind of broad smear is exactly the point of the article-- to give you
cover so you feel comfortable impeaching your intellectual integrity.

------
Frozenlock
"Housing development gone bad after being handled poorly. They also happen to
be libertarians." Nan, that doesn't sell well...

"How a Libertarian Paradise in Chile Fell Apart"

Oh wow, much better!

~~~
MCRed
Some other points:

1\. This was an obvious bad idea to anyone who has been in Chile (such as
myself) given its location. Namely they wanted to build a "farm" and
sustainable development midway between Santiago and Valparaiso, along a main
highway, in an area that is borderline desert, yet which has a fair amount of
development already, housing neighborhoods, businesses, olive pressing plants
and the like... meaning effectively the chilean version of suburbs (convenient
to the big city yes) and not a rural farm appropriate area.

Alas, one thing americans do too often[1], especially when buying real estate
outside the country, is they want to fly in, buy the property over a long
weekend and fly out. I think it's too easy to project american standards for
property transactions onto other countries. Any time you're spending thousands
of dollars, do your due diligence, and if that means buying a retirement
property in another country, spend at least a summer there to make sure you
like the country! Chile is really wonderful in many ways, but like everywhere
else it has its things that are annoying.

2\. It never got off the ground. There are thousands of terrible real estate
deals that never got off the ground in the USA, especially after 2008. But no
sensationalist articles about them. Why? Because the purpose of this article
is purely political... it's to give the people commenting in this thread an
opportunity to spew their hate.

3\. There is, actually, a libertarian "paradise" in chile. Not only is much of
the country pretty close to that definition on a lot of scores, but there's a
successful sustainable housing / real estate development there which predates
this effort by several years. (I'm not going to mention it by name because
they deserve their privacy.)

But of course, you'll never hear about that operation on the pages of Vice or
Salon, or any other leftist rag. Unless, of course, they become well known
enough and need to be "taken down a few notches", like Ayn Rand seems to every
few months, despite being dead for nearly 40 years. (such power to reach out
from the grave! If only people felt the need to make up stuff to write 2,000
word articles to bash me with 40 years after I'm in the ground!)

[1] as reported in a variety of expat forums and magazines, and based on the
way some of these "gringo focused" operations market themselves. For example,
the same property in many central and south american countries is listed
online at one price much higher (but with a full service real estate agent
attached) online, than it is listed in the local listing services. OR pay
dollars and pay twice to three times as much when you buy with pesos.

------
bane
One of the interesting historic tests of any ideology, no matter what, is that
it must be able to survive contact with the rest of the world. Example, if
your philosophy is absolute pacifism, there is nothing but the good will of
your neighbors preventing them from annihilating you and taking your stuff.
Even Tibet had an army.

Also. Highly individualistic ideologies struggle against moderately
collectivist ones. And highly collectivist ideologies struggle against
moderately individualistic ones.

Better organization and flexibility will generally win against rabble and/or
inflexible arrangements.

~~~
MCRed
Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well. Having originated
with Rothbard in the 1970s, it's growing every decade pretty significantly.

I'm assuming you're not believing libertarians are pacifists, but since you
brought it up in an example, the definition of libertarian is: "One who
believes that the initiation of force is immoral". This was a pledge that the
LP required all members to sign for many years.

Note the initiation of force is immoral to libertarians, not its use in self
defense, or in defense of another.

I do invite you to come hang out in any place where libertarians gather.
You'll find that they are nothing if not flexible, as half of them are
anarchists, half are not, and none think that they all have to believe the
same to work together. (half are pot smokers, half tee-totalers, half pro-
life, half-pro choice (though they do agree government should be out of it)
half are high tech, half are old school, etc.)

This article, though, really has nothing to do with libertarianism.

~~~
eevilspock
> _" Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well."_

I think you misunderstand the test. It is not whether an ideology has a
growing number of believers over an extended period of time (On that measure,
Islam is doing far better), but how well it does when actually implemented
(i.e. in practice not theory).

The article is claiming that this story is an example of failure when
implemented.

~~~
MCRed
The article is essentially a fabrication.

~~~
eevilspock
Even if so, not nearly as much as the story of Atlas Shrugged and the tenants
of Objectivism.

~~~
naturalethic
Atlas Shrugged is fiction, genius. Some libertarians are anti-Objectivist.

------
rdtsc
Why would anyone thik it would succeed? Any other sucessful examples in modern
times?

For the amount of seemingly rational and intelligent believers and press this
"philosophy" gets, I would expect there by now to be countless of obvious
example of it working.

~~~
jpadkins
hong kong vs. pre-market reform china, south korea vs. north korea, 18th
century US vs. 18th century mexico, cayman islands vs. cuba, singapore vs.
jakarta

there are many examples of the more free market society doing better than its
counterparts.

~~~
jlangenauer
South Korea, 18th C US and Singapore are hardly examples of "free markets",
but much more of capitalist state planning and intervention.

~~~
vacri
And 'free market' isn't synonymous with 'libertarian' anyway.

~~~
idlewords
In fact a free market implies all kinds of social mechanisms to set and
enforce ground rules. All the examples upthread had very strong state control.

~~~
MCRed
Yes there are social mechanisms in the honest use of the word- that is, when
someone proves to be a scammer they lose business in a free market. But
otherwise a free market is an unregulated market. "very strong state control"
is the opposite of a free market. That's central planning, and despite the
name "Socialism" there's not much social about it because it does not benefit
society, but it benefits the people who dictate prices (namely government
bureaucrats.)

------
Nizumzen
I hate it when clearly American authors always equate Libertarianism with
Capitalism. Originally Libertarianism was an idea that grew out of left wing
politics (socialism and communism) in Europe in the 19th century. Only
recently have the Americans hijacked the term for their own means. So called
right wing Libertarianism.

I wish more people were up to speed with political history because it really
gets my goat every time I see someone make this mistake.

------
lurkinggrue
I'm so shocked.

------
endgovernment
Politicized, garbage headline.

Statism has no place in the startup community.

~~~
idlewords
The startup community is the spoiled child of decades of statist initiatives.
That probably explains the petulant libertarianism.

~~~
MCRed
So, basically you just called the startup community and libertarians childish
and petulant.

Have you got something more than name calling?

~~~
eevilspock
Have you?

> That you have chosen this as your avenue of response, I take as a concession
> of my points in completion and admission of intellectual bankruptcy.

> No, but they are uncomfortable, hence the down votes. Alas, this is not a
> site with high intellectual integrity.

> I wonder how many of them have, rather than burning the book, decided to
> read it and think about it for themselves?

> so you feel comfortable impeaching your intellectual integrity.

> But Hacker News has had a very strong left bias, and a draconian moderation
> policy going back at least to 2008. You risk being hellbanned for linking to
> scientific papers here if the papers don't agree with the ideology of the
> moderators (who, like all unaccountable entities, like to remain anonymous.)

