
Inside the libertarian version of Burning Man: Guns, booze and bitcoin - mjwhansen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/inside-the-libertarian-version-of-burning-man-guns-booze-and-bitcoin/2014/07/01/74d9d996-ffcf-11e3-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html?tid=sm_fb
======
jMyles
I was at this festival for six of the eight days (I arrived pre-dawn Tuesday
morning). I'm also in one of the photos (I'm the base in the acro yoga pose).

The tone and content of this article have nearly zero in common with the tone
and content of this festival.

What I saw was a warm, welcoming, well-read, sophisticated, diverse group of
people focused on learning, doing, and playing.

The tech talks were as good as a tech conference. The gardening and
permaculture talks were as good as a WOOF seminar. The political talks were as
diverse and compelling as a beltway nonprofit convention. And yet, all these
things occurred in one week at one festival.

Joel Salatin's keynote was particularly awesome. Patrick Byrne and Lyn
Ulbricht were also very good.

At my talk on mesh networking, which was supposed to be introductory, the
crowd well overflowed the tent and was incredibly sophisticated, having
already read up on IPv6, CA's, DNS, and a bunch of other tangentially related
topics.

There were hundreds of children playing all kinds of engaging, self-organized
games throughout every day across the entire festival grounds, including the
biggest and most passionate game of humans vs. zombies I've seen outside a
university campus. :-)

There were also classes and workshops for children all day every day. The kids
weren't "wandering around the festival" as the article puts it, but in fact
were an integral part of it.

The level of debauchery and intoxication was far, far lower than a typical
music festival. Yes, there was lots and lots of cannabis consumption. However,
I didn't see a single person who was incapacitated (or even impaired) from
drug use, including alcohol, which for a 2,000 person outdoor festival is
unusual.

This was a great festival and a very healthy experience for me. I highly
suggest attendance.

------
Malarkey73
“It’s great to be around people who understand. I don’t get how the left won’t
just admit that income tax is theft. Who cares if it’s for a good cause?"

Said the guy who drove to the festival on the trillion dollar road network.

~~~
miscnope
Don't know about the US, but in the UK we're forced to pay road tax (if you
have a car) in addition to income tax, national insurance and council tax. So
by not paying income tax, we're still paying for road maintenance via road tax
and we'd still be paying for the NHS too.

I don't mind tax as long as it's optional, I'll pay road tax, I don't want to
pay income tax.

~~~
leoedin
Don't want to pay road tax? Don't have a car on the roads. Don't want to pay
income tax? Don't have an income!

~~~
logfromblammo
Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't buy food, clothing, shelter,
transportation, or medicine!

The SCotUS struck down poll taxes because the exercise of a right--in that
case, voting--cannot be taxed. By that reasoning, if you support a tax on
something, you must believe that no one has a right to that thing.

Sales taxes and income taxes imply that there is no right to engage in
voluntary commerce. You have no right to earn or spend money. Property taxes
imply you have no right to own property. Naturally, if this principle were
carried out to its logical extreme, the government has a revenue incentive in
denying people their rights.

And that leads to the question: so how do people who love their freedoms pay
for a government? And there is no single, objectively correct answer to that
question.

And there is also no good reason to mock and ridicule either the people that
ask it, or the people who answer it differently.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The SCotUS struck down poll taxes

True...

> because the exercise of a right--in that case, voting--cannot be taxed.

False.

The Supreme Court struck down poll taxes because "A State's conditioning of
the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" because "[o]nce the franchise is granted
to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as
to cause invidious discrimination", "[f]ee payments or wealth, like race,
creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen's ability to participate
intelligently in the electoral process", and "[t]he interest of the State,
when it comes to voting registration, is limited to the fixing of standards
related to the applicant's qualifications as a voter", finding that "[t]o
introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications
is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor." _Harper v. Virginia Bd. of
Elections_ , 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

It did not at any point make the argument that "the exercise of a right cannot
be taxed". It _only_ made the argument that poll taxes were an unacceptable
burden on the right to vote because they impose a burden on a _fundamental_
right that is not sufficiently justified by any state interest relating to the
exercise of that right.

> Sales taxes and income taxes imply that there is no right to engage in
> voluntary commerce.

No, they don't. The Supreme Court tolerating them when it has struck down poll
taxes for the reasons described above indicates that the burden that such
taxes pose on the right to voluntary commerce, presuming such a right exists,
is not unjustified by legitimate government interests related to commerce, it
does not imply that the right does not exist (or even that it is not a
fundamental right like voting.)

~~~
logfromblammo
As you say, the SCotUS didn't _explicitly_ say the exercise of a right cannot
be taxed, but that doesn't obviate the fact that _I_ am making that argument,
absent any appeal to authority, right now. The issue was that poll taxes were
being used to prevent poor black people from voting, denying their rights.
That establishes definitively that taxation does infringe upon rights, and
necessarily limits the ability of some people to exercise them. Poll taxes are
not the only such example. There are several examples of backdoor prohibitions
by outlawing something without possession of a proper tax stamp, then allowing
the revenue authority to limit the quantity of stamps, or refuse to sell them
outright. It works for drugs, guns, taxicabs, unsavory businesses, or anything
else you don't want in your town, but can't manage to outlaw directly.

The SCotUS is not staffed by supermen or gods. We can reason as well as they
can, but we are not bound by their tradition or political expedience. We can
more safely make decisions that might impede the flow of money into the
treasury or even collapse the existing government entirely.

I say that a right cannot be taxed. Any external impediment to the exercise of
that right, of which taxation is but one, is an infringement. You can
disagree, if you like.

Now, a Supreme Court justice, paid in part by the collection of taxes, would
obviously say, "Whoa, now. Let's not be too hasty, there, fella." If I were in
that position, I too might want to establish some form of guideline or
balancing test, such that the infringement be "in the public interest" and
"overtly nondiscriminatory, while still greatly advantaging rich people".

Taxing someone's speech by the word is unethical. Taxing someone's religion by
the prayer is unethical. Taxing someone's trade by the amount of coin that
changes hands is unethical.

We tolerate some level of unethical behavior in government, but it can go too
far. If, for instance, someone raised the income tax rate to 101%, there is
_nothing_ inherent to the substance of the law preventing that. But you can be
certain that it would go to the SCotUS, and they would find a way to say "you
can't go that high" without also saying "you can't have that tax at all." It
is very likely that they would carefully avoid establishing anything lower
than 101% as an upper limit, thus inviting further decisions for 100% and 99%
and so on until everyone got tired of trying the same case repeatedly.

Also, I do allege that voluntary commerce is a basic human right. The ability
to buy and sell is a necessary and critical element of participation in civil
society, and essential to securing our survival needs. It is derived from and
intimately related to the right to own property.

Unless we are communist, and openly disavow any right to own property, I think
we can safely presume that we also have the right to buy and sell that
property.

But let's not just appeal to authority and let it lie without addressing the
substance of the argument.

~~~
dragonwriter
> As you say, the SCotUS didn't _explicitly_ say the exercise of a right
> cannot be taxed

No, it didn't just not explicitly say that was the reason for its decision, it
explicitly said what the reason was, and that wasn't it. So it is a falsehood
to claim that the SCOTUS struck down poll taxes for the reason you claim.

> but that doesn't obviate the fact that I am making that argument, absent any
> appeal to authority, right now.

Okay, fine, you are making the argument, and you are wrong. Exercise of rights
_can be_ taxed (whether you are using "can be" in the strict sense of
possibility, or in the sense of "consistent with the US Constitution".) You
may want to argue that they should not be taxed, but you haven't made that
argument.

> The issue was that poll taxes were being used to prevent poor black people
> from voting, denying their rights.

Not exactly; the issue was that taxation created a differential burden based
on wealth which thereby denied equal protection of the laws by imposing a
qualification with differential impact on an axis (wealth) unrelated to a
valid government purpose related to the right being exercised (voting). (Not
particularly relevant to the immediate discussion, but additionally contrary
to your statement, race actually was not a cited factor in the decision,
though wealth was _analogized_ to race, creed, and color in the decision.)

> I say that a right cannot be taxed. Any external impediment to the exercise
> of that right, of which taxation is but one, is an infringement.

If a right were truly absolute then, certainly, by definition any external
impediment would be an infringement. The question is whether we should
consider "voluntary commercial activity" an absolute right (a category which
even most basic rights are not generally held to fall into, as they are not
generally, even by people who agree that they are _fundamental_ rights, tend
to accept certain external impediments to them as necessary) -- and you have
not made any argument for why it should be so. You may consider it to be an
axiom, a fundamental, unquestionable value in itself. But if you do, you
should just say that and admit that discussion is impossible, not try to
reference a Supreme Court decision that does nothing to support your position.

> But let's not just appeal to authority and let it lie without addressing the
> substance of the argument.

There is no substance to your argument, just an assertion of what is either a
conclusion without support or, to you, a basic axiom ("a right can't be
taxed") combined with a series of dubious analogies, and waving at inaccurate
descriptions of what the Supreme Court has said and your predictions of what
the Supreme Court would say in cases that don't clearly relate to the point
you are arguing for.

~~~
logfromblammo
Clearly, "commerce is a right" and "a right cannot be taxed" are not axioms,
because people (including, evidently, you) disagree with them, and therefore
they are not accepted as true without controversy. They are just my premises.

When I say "cannot be taxed", I mean that the taxation destroys its status as
a right.

Matters related to the Supreme Court are distracting from the core argument. I
withdraw any claims I made regarding the SCotUS. They were only made as a
matter of rhetorical convenience.

As a result, this is the argument:

1\. A right is any activity that members of a society agree to protect
unconditionally. (definition) 2\. Therefore, if conditions are placed on an
activity, it is not a right. (contraposition) 3\. Voluntary commerce is a
right. (premise) 4\. Taxation represents the addition of a money-based
condition to an activity. (premise) 5\. Voluntary commerce includes one or
more buyers, and one or more sellers, wherein the sellers transfer ownership
to a good or provide a service to the buyers, and the buyers transfer
ownership of a quantity of trade currency to the sellers. (definition) 6\.
Sales taxes apply to commercial activity, when the seller transfers ownership
of goods or renders service. (by definition) 7\. Income taxes apply to
commercial activity, when the buyer transfers ownership of trade currency. (by
definition) 6\. Therefore, if commerce is a right, application of sales or
income taxes would destroy its status as such.

The logic is sound, so only the premises are assailable.

I should clarify that when I said "external impediment", I meant that such
impediments can only be created by actors with moral agency. If a mountain
stands between you and the marketplace, it is not an external impediment to
your right to commerce; it just increases your overhead costs. A highwayman
that robs, kidnaps, or murders you on your way to the market is, in that he
made a choice that ultimately prevented you from trading. I don't know of any
more precise term to describe this. Antagonism, perhaps?

------
zo1
_" And this year, roughly 2,000 people - mostly white men - have paid between
$45 and $100 to "_ You know, gotta keep pumping up that stereotype, hey:
"Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of selfish rich white men."

~~~
whybroke
Well let's look at a group photo:

[http://i.imgur.com/BTv37qB.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/BTv37qB.jpg)

ahh yes, I think I see is a solitary black kid near the middle.

~~~
MCRed
Sure, just ignore all the asians, hispanics, women, etc in that photo.

You're arguing in support of a prejudice that says "only white males are
libertarians therefore we don't have to listen to their arguments".

It's anti-intellectual.

~~~
dublinben
>Sure, just ignore all the asians, hispanics, women, etc

Well the libertarian movement certainly does.

[http://redd.it/28wdvh](http://redd.it/28wdvh)

~~~
zo1
The beauty of Libertarianism is it doesn't matter. We are _all_ equal in our
fundamental rights as human beings, even if some choose to be ignorant.

Currently, in the supposedly "democratic" and "free" world with a state
government we have varieties of classes and hierarchies of people. Some have
benefits, some are favored, others are despised and denied rights. I'll take
my Libertarian supposed "ignorance" over Democracy's fake "equality of all"
non-sense that is pretty much double-speak.

------
Nursie
I still don't really understand libertarianism.

I'm not sure what it is that gives someone the moral right to reserve a
section of the surface of the earth by force of arms in a system where all
violence is considered morally wrong (and so many things can be apparently
considered violence).

If you can use violence to take away my access to land, I don't see how that
differs from the rest of us taking some of your income.

~~~
jMyles
Many libertarians, including some as this festival, don't regard land property
as absolute, or in some cases, even just at all. For example, some believe
that they have a right to build and defend a home, but not a right to prevent
people from reasonably traversing the land, so long as they don't disturb
anything.

Come to the festival and ask these questions; you'll be surprised at the
diversity and sophistication of the answers you'll get.

~~~
mercer
That's a great recommendation, actually.

I'm still shocked and embarrassed at how I once lumped all forms of
libertarianism into the 'primitivist anarchism' pile, only to discover that a
lot of thought _and_ practice has gone into the various libertarian systems.

I assumed, for the longest time, that they were all basically people who
couldn't make life work or were lazy, and decided to rationalize this as a
choice. The weed-smoking, squatting type who badly needs a shower and a
haircut, and secretly relies on others for money and a safety-net (mind, all
of these things don't necessarily go together!).

Ironically, I spent much of my life as a Christian battling stereotypes that
were based on American right-wing evangelical extremism. I should've known
better.

Experiencing some of these 'libertarian' environments and reading some of the
literature painted a much more nuanced picture, and enriched my views
tremendously, even if just because the views were so radically different from
what I was familiar with.

At some point in my life I decided that it would be good to spend significant
effort to learn about views that are alien to me. Because even if they don't
make a convincing argument in the end, they make me question whatever system I
have in my head, and I feel that that's always a good thing.

------
chrisbennet
“It’s great to be around people who understand. I don’t get how the left won’t
just admit that income tax is theft. Who cares if it’s for a good cause?"

Can someone give me an example of a government where Libertarian principles
have been successfully implemented? It doesn't have to be perfect (nothing
with humans ever is) but at least something that is non-imaginary would be
helpful in making their case.

~~~
MCRed
USA 1776-1915 - Went from 3rd world to 1st world, fastest time ever, despite a
civil war and many other challenges. India 1980-2000 - Not a libertarian
country at all, but went from hard socialist to more moderate and doubled the
average income of a billion people China 1990-2010 - Again not a "perfect"
country, but by allowing capitalism, which is another way of saying reducing
regulation, produced a massive economic boom and a massive increase in
prosperity.

You're correct to recognize that it is a scale of grey. Historically,
countries that are more libertarian (e.g.: economic and social freedom) have
better outcomes than countries that are more authoritarian.

~~~
Coffeewine
If you're counting the slave holding United States as a 'libertarian' society
you're rather stretching the term. Beyond that, there are countless ways in
which even white protestant Americans were subject to the state in the US,
both locally and federally. I don't think it should count.

~~~
MCRed
Since the basis of your response is several lies about what I said, your
argument is nil.

------
dsr_
There appears to be a government of sorts, but because everyone is busy
denying that there is a government, the decisions can't be appealed.

~~~
leoedin
In the absence of formal command structures it's human nature for informal
ones to form. This is a theme that comes up time and time again when reading
about organisations with very flat management structures (eg Valve and Corel).
It turns out that while formal management structures can have accountability
and systems to deal with unfair actions, informal ones can't. I know which one
I'd prefer to work under.

------
msrpotus
What is it about "libertarian" versions of things that they always involve
guns (and generally drunk people)?

~~~
mcphage
> and generally drunk people

I think that's pretty much every event where you get a bunch of people
together in the woods :-)

------
jedanbik
So it's like a music festival with lots of guns? Sounds dangerous. Count me
out.

~~~
jMyles
It is, without a doubt, the least dangerous-feeling festival I've ever
attended. In fact, I have never felt so free from fear.

------
tomphoolery
Ironically, at the Burning Man events prior to 1996, you _could_ shoot guns.
:)

~~~
metacorrector
Ironically, Burning Man prior to 1996 didn't make me want to shoot guns; now
if they allowed me to carry, I don't think I could carry enough.

------
matt__rose
You know, Burning Man used to have a drive-by shooting gallery. With guns, and
cars, and is just as libertarian as this festival. The difference is, Burning
Man encompasses much more than just libertarianism.

------
alex_doom
Why is it compared to Burning Man? Music + Drugs + Kooky People? Oh ok that's
burning man alright... Lazy journalism.

------
kevinkimball
the article mentions that ~20 FSP people have been elected to the NH
legislature at one point or another.However, it neglects to mention that the
NH General Court has 424 members. Not much of an achievement in a state of
1.3m.

