
Libertarianism = Feudalism? - raintrees
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/we-already-tried-libertarianism-it-was-called-feudalism
======
discodave
I wish I had written this piece, it's been something I want to say every time
somebody says they are in favor of small government or no government.

> How about Rand Paul, one of the leading advocates for libertarianism,
> explaining why he wouldn’t vote for the Civil Rights Act: “I abhor racism. I
> think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant —
> but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.”

The fundamental failure of liberterian logic comes if we imagine a world with
no (or a weak) state to impose rules on your restaurant. Do you really think
that the power vacuum will stay empty? Of course not, even the most shallow
perusal of history shows that somebody will have the motivation and power to
exert control over people and property. In short, there will be somebody else
who wants a piece of your shop and you better give it to them or be prepared
to fight them.

~~~
ndsjk
Even libertarians agree that property rights should be protected from violent
theft or coercion. The problem isn't that somebody else wants a piece of your
shop, it's that, most people have already given away a piece of their shop.
People are social creatures, most of us have a tendency to follow a leader.
So, even without the threat of violence, simply through normal social means,
powerful groups and organisations emerge. They need to be kept in line by the
state, otherwise they threaten the state's ability to keep the peace. Once an
organisation becomes more powerful than the state, it is the de facto state.
At which point, the experiment in libertarianism is over.

The Civil Rights Act is a great example of this. Both sides were organised.
So, the issue of whether or not a particular individual was allowed into a
particular restaurant stopped being a matter of negotiation between business
owner and customer, and was instead a small part of a massive conflict between
large groups of people. These little conflicts could not be resolved by
bargaining because the agents involved were not pricing the costs of their
actions according to the rational behaviour of a selfish individual. Instead,
the individuals were highly valuing the well being of their group, promoting
their group's values even to the point of becoming engaged in violence and
endangering themselves.

If the state had not acted, and had simply attempted to keep the peace, what
would have happened? Most likely a lot of violence would have broken out, much
of it beyond the capacity of the state to control. What is the libertarian way
of dealing with a civil war? I can't imagine.

I think really what is needed isn't smaller government, but better incentives
and competition within government structure. Imagine if the people got to vote
on the budget. Maybe not on how much taxes were collected, but on where the
money went. Imagine if there were many smaller government departments that had
semi overlapping functions, or functions of oversight over other departments.
Imagine if setting up a government department was something anyone could do,
like running for political office, and all you had to do was get some money
voted your way during the budget vote. That way we would have a kind of free
business like structure with regards the implementation of public policy, but
we could still have policies that regulated and shaped the nation.

------
dragonwriter
I think its more accurate to say Libertarianism → Feudalism than
Libertarianism = Feudalism.

Feudalism is the _consequence_ of having civil society reduced solely to
property rights.

