The Libertarian Philosophy

[Kyle M]

I have been asked, in an insulting manner, to make a thread about libertarian philosophy. There is so much written on this, and I usually try to link to what I consider great articles or books, that I find the exercise superfluous, Nonetheless I'll open up the discussion by stating the simple tenet from which all libertarian positions flow. Unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism has a central idea, and rather than wrestling with concepts for different situations the challenge is simply to most consistently apply this idea in all contexts.

The idea is called the non-aggression principle (NAP), whereby offensive violence is the only moral and legal wrong. Murder, theft, rape etc. are all wrong because they violate the NAP, as opposed to assisted suicide, taking something that is given, and consensual sex. One can see that there isn't anything inherently wrong in "taking a life," or "taking property," as long as the one losing their life and/or property are giving them away consensually. Likewise, all crimes share this in common, that they violate the self-ownership property rights of individuals. If the state, which is the institutionalized legal monopoly of violence over a given geographical area, claims something is illegal (using Scheduled drugs, working for less than minimum wage, practicing nutritional counseling without a government license) but there is no NAP violation inherent in the act, a libertarian would not consider this a crime.

One also sees that the state, or government, is inherently criminal because it's raison d'etre is to violate the NAP. Taxes are involuntary appropriations, regulations are limits on what you can do with your property, war is simply a state term used to describe institutionalized mass murder.

There are two basic ways to argue for NAP, the natural rights theory, or consequentialist/utilitarian theory. I fall on the natural rights side, I don't think it's very useful to say that murder is wrong because it would have negative outcomes on society if murder became widespread, but rather because it's a violation of self-ownership. At every political question, like whether it's moral to tax for a state expense, or make it illegal to trade in currency other than US dollars, or whether it should be illegal to buy and sell unpasteurized milk, the central question is of property rights and the priority therein. Who has priority over their money, the individual or the state? Who has priority over their body, the individual or the state? If it's the individual, than all coercive state action is illegitimate; if it's the state, then there is nothing wrong with, for example (Godwin's Law) the Nazi killing of Jews in Germany since that government was largely democratically elected like all of the other governments. Or, if that action was wrong, why was it wrong, and why is killing people in a foreign country not wrong? Why is forcing someone to pay taxes not wrong, when the punishment for withholding tax payments and resisting arrest leads eventually to being shot by the police or IRS? Does anyone have the right to someone else's property, and if not, how can they outsource that right to government?

Ok I'll stop there, although one could ramble on for pages about this. The most persuasive tidbits I've read are by Larken Rose, and the best long-form essays and books written by Murray Rothbard. The most libertarian politician in recent history was Ron Paul, who gave great speeches and honest for forthright libertarian answers to questions on the debate stages of the 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential primaries.

 

[Drareg]

The entire idea is based on the interpretation of non aggression principle and violence.
How do you interpret violence toward other creatures?

If the above is violated how do you deal with this,if someone is aggressive toward you?
If you are violent toward the aggressor yet have no witnesses to your interaction how do you prove you had a right in this situation?

What if a whole group of psychopaths like what we see in North Korea decide to attack you? How is this not war or mass murder if you defend yourself? Many people in North Korea will be bred to be psychopathic,they know no other way,I'm sure there are a few who are not.

Its semantics then,your philosophy comes down to semantics and this is where the flaws appear.
The reason this system is not lasting or working is because is doesn't fit human behaviour,humans can't grow into the system,it has to work both ways,the human must become the system internally and externally it changes.

If somebody wants to show me the way to climb a mountain,a mountain with many different routes to the top,if I know the routes I will not need direction ,I will move forward and if those directing try force me with violence, I can turn around and walk a different path,if everyone in the group has the understanding of different routes and know how to climb the mountain they will do the same and the directors will be redundant and will just begin to climb like everyone else on their own random route,the human behaviour is relevant to what they know here,they all know the mountain has several routes so external behaviour reflects that,if however they were not told about the mountain having several routes we can then set up tolls,central offices for direction and even have heroes/religious icons/pop culture icons of the selected paths and even one book,the book!
Then we can have possibly several paths all with different flags,tolls,bible/book/map etc.

Does the libertarian philosophy have the map to climbing the mountain? Until it does have the map the concept fails albeit lasting a touch longer than the current circus but the question begs does it make the advancements that the current circus makes? Has this been tested?

For me libertarianism is where the deep subconscious is manifesting authoritarianism through the use of semantics,essentially a get out of jail free card for violence if you can convince enough people to interpret reality with the same meaning you have.
The libertarian, subtle libertarianism can be seen in the individual wanting their country to become libertarian in outlook,that it doesn't exist currently and I wear these shackles of big government enslavement.
The problem here is it does exist,there are parts of planet earth you can go and have this life if you wish,you can go there and live and let live,this doesn't suit most libertarianists because they want everyone to have their view/meaning on violence.

This where libertarianism is essentially similar to the seeds of the current circus,the current circus are pushing their meaning and interpretation all over us and it's falling apart as many of them do not understand how reality is working.

Is nature violent if it blows a tree on my family while walking/driving and kills my family? Does libertarianism allow me to point this fact out and kill all trees as they are violent when coerced by the wind,do I then think libertarian and stop the wind,alas it doesn't take wind for a tree to fall.
Make your house tree proof,put a big net over the house with massive wind breakers,the neighbours won't care if you block the sun with your eyesore architecture as its a libertarian world.

Your second paragraph is where you offer the interpretation the rest is what you are doing regularly,creating hyperbolic arguments against the current circus while not asknowledging the current systems successes,please stop as this is well known at this point,nobody in their right mind running a small business believe it is right to pay over 50% tax,the thing you don't Currently question is if people were asked to pay a small amount of taxes for a more accountable government they would be OK with this,ask around.
Yes Hitler existed and was voted in democratically whatever way you define democratic,the same system that elected hitler got rid of him,the same systems were in the west at that time,those systems are now creating dictators.
The problem with those systems is accountability,the only way to hold them accountable currently is through violent revolution,libertarianism is no different here for a mass amount of people,how to you define one group claiming another instigated the violence against another when thousands claim it was them who started an vice versa.
It's all about Human meaning and biology influences this as much as the psychology influencing the biology,one and same.

All,of you touting Peat has this view or that view on politics yet have no direct answer from Peat on his views,Danny Roody went to extremes of trying to create the illusion that Peat specifically said anarchy is the way forward as many of you are doing, Peat will know that none of these systems will currently work with the current energy levels of human organism ,he offers interesting tidbits from them all as insight to what Did work,for example the nazis were majority psychopaths but they engineered some impressive things,this is reality laughing at us humans and our interpretation of it.
Can libertarianism create the foods we need for higher metabolic energy?

There is a more non violent way to hold government accountable and it's through mass boycott,it's is wrong to say it won't be violent however as the power that he will try violence on you.
For me all you stateside should have channels your election energy/hysteria into promoting a mass boycott of both candidates,it would have made a stronger statement and giving all of you hope/energy back instead of wasted hope and energy.

 

[James_001]

Why are you supporting trump as a libertarian? Why not vote for Johnson? Many of Trumps ideas are very far away from anything a libertarian would consider ideal, Ron Paul is not voting for trump.

 

[dookie]

I have been asked, in an insulting manner

So you feel compelled to do it because you were asked in an insulting manner? :)

 

[Luann]

I can't agree that the greatest wrongs to our society are done in violent ways. They have more subtle and effective ways these days.

 

[javacody]

In a libertarian society, how do you prevent a company from poisoning water harming thousands or millions of water consumers downstream?

 

[Kyle M]

Why are you supporting trump as a libertarian? Why not vote for Johnson? Many of Trumps ideas are very far away from anything a libertarian would consider ideal, Ron Paul is not voting for trump.

I'm not supporting Trump or voting for him, but I do point out that from an NAP perspective, Hillary Clinton is much less libertarian and more likely to start war and increase state aggression domestically than Trump. I also find it very interesting that the elites hate Trump and are attacking him the way they are, I've learned to glean information from where your accolades and insults come from.

So you feel compelled to do it because you were asked in an insulting manner? :)

I could make a longer explanation, but the essential answer is yes.

I can't agree that the greatest wrongs to our society are done in violent ways. They have more subtle and effective ways these days.

What wrongs, that do not ultimately rely on violence, are you referring to?

 

[Kyle M]

In a libertarian society, how do you prevent a company from poisoning water harming thousands or millions of water consumers downstream?

Short answer: property rights. In a libertarian society, all property would be owned, either by individuals, as in a house on a plot of land owned by a husband and wife, or cooperatives, as in a condo complex where individuals own their units and share ownership and governance of the grounds, or corporations, as in a factory or a farm or a mine. Waterways, as in times of old (lots of interesting legal history about the partitioning of water rights in the American West where water was more scarce than in the East) would be owned, and it would be a crime to pollute a river or lake or aquifer. Downstream water rights would be part of the contract of buying a technological unit of a waterway, the same way that the air space directly above your house and underground space directly below your house is considered part of the property, even though the deed only discusses two dimensional space.

 

[Kyle M]

@Drareg, if you want an answer please post a succinct point and/or question. I'm willing to engage in dialectic with you but am not willing to respond to an essay every time you post. And frankly, the kind of long responses you write come off as emotionally charged, which is another point of disinterest to me for engagement. If you forced yourself to limit the space used and collect your thoughts to make a clear point, it would probably help the legibility and engagement potential of your posts.

 

[Kyle M]

Had to respond to a few particularly misguided bits:

Is nature violent if it blows a tree on my family while walking/driving and kills my family? Does libertarianism allow me to point this fact out and kill all trees as they are violent when coerced by the wind,do I then think libertarian and stop the wind,alas it doesn't take wind for a tree to fall.

Trees don't have rights, you don't have to justify killing trees. So called acts of God are not violations of the NAP because actions by non-human entities do not fall under the NAP. You can defend yourself against a bear, as a bear will defend itself against you, but to think that a bear attacking a human is similar to a human attacking a human is silly. Bears cannot be rationale in abstract thoughts, only in immediate survival actions.

Currently question is if people were asked to pay a small amount of taxes for a more accountable government they would be OK with this,ask around.

The point is that people are not "asked" to pay taxes. If they were, then the system would be libertarian, rather than statist. In the tax code they even list the income tax as "voluntary," but my definition of voluntary does not include being thrown in a cage if you don't comply.

Yes Hitler existed and was voted in democratically whatever way you define democratic,the same system that elected hitler got rid of him,the same systems were in the west at that time,those systems are now creating dictators.

The same system got rid of Hitler as voted him in, and that is a good thing? Tens of millions of people dying domestically in Germany, and in the war effort, is the system "working?" I think that points outs how inherently bad the system is.

Can libertarianism create the foods we need for higher metabolic energy?

Human action creates our food, farmers and distributors and producers of farming equipment. The question is whether a centrally planned economy, or a property rights system with decentralized planning by individuals, is more effective at creating food and other goods and services for humans.

 

[Drareg]

Had to respond to a few particularly misguided bits:



Trees don't have rights, you don't have to justify killing trees. So called acts of God are not violations of the NAP because actions by non-human entities do not fall under the NAP. You can defend yourself against a bear, as a bear will defend itself against you, but to think that a bear attacking a human is similar to a human attacking a human is silly. Bears cannot be rationale in abstract thoughts, only in immediate survival actions.



The point is that people are not "asked" to pay taxes. If they were, then the system would be libertarian, rather than statist. In the tax code they even list the income tax as "voluntary," but my definition of voluntary does not include being thrown in a cage if you don't comply.



The same system got rid of Hitler as voted him in, and that is a good thing? Tens of millions of people dying domestically in Germany, and in the war effort, is the system "working?" I think that points outs how inherently bad the system is.




Human action creates our food, farmers and distributors and producers of farming equipment. The question is whether a centrally planned economy, or a property rights system with decentralized planning by individuals, is more effective at creating food and other goods and services for humans.

It's interesting you respond to the weaker points I made mainly in jest,I'm highlighting contradictions when I speak of trees etc
Trees don't have rights? Nature gave them a purpose,it has a right to grow and engage in photosynthesis or we all get into trouble if trees have no rights.

Answer the following from my post,the rest of my post was mainly metaphor for those interested on the forum.

"If the above is violated how do you deal with this,if someone is aggressive toward you?
If you are violent toward the aggressor yet have no witnesses to your interaction how do you prove you had a right in this situation?"

"What if a whole group of psychopaths like what we see in North Korea decide to attack you? How is this not war or mass murder if you defend yourself? Many people in North Korea will be bred to be psychopathic,they know no other way,I'm sure there are a few who are not."

"Its semantics then,your philosophy comes down to semantics and this is where the flaws appear.
The reason this system is not lasting or working is because is doesn't fit human behaviour,humans can't grow into the system,it has to work both ways,the human must become the system internally and externally it changes."( to add to this point internal and external are one and the same,no philosophy/ideal unless in tune with this rhythm will work for very long)

If the above is violated how do you deal with this,if someone is aggressive toward you?
If you are violent toward the aggressor yet have no witnesses to your interaction how do you prove you had a right in this situation?

What if a whole group of psychopaths like what we see in North Korea decide to attack you? How is this not war or mass murder if you defend yourself? Many people in North Korea will be bred to be psychopathic,they know no other way,I'm sure there are a few who are not.

Its semantics then,your philosophy comes down to semantics and this is where the flaws appear.
The reason this system is not lasting or working is because is doesn't fit human behaviour,humans can't grow into the system,it has to work both ways,the human must become the system internally and externally it changes.

For me libertarianism is where the deep subconscious is manifesting authoritarianism through the use of semantics,essentially a get out of jail free card for violence if you can convince enough people to interpret reality with the same meaning you have.

 

[Drareg]

@Drareg, if you want an answer please post a succinct point and/or question. I'm willing to engage in dialectic with you but am not willing to respond to an essay every time you post. And frankly, the kind of long responses you write come off as emotionally charged, which is another point of disinterest to me for engagement. If you forced yourself to limit the space used and collect your thoughts to make a clear point, it would probably help the legibility and engagement potential of your posts.

This response is consistent behaviour from you on the forum,your authoritarian with the mask of libertarian Imo.
It's a vain attempt to discredit with the illusory high road.
What makes the above post worse from you is that you have posted similar length responses in the past.

My points are in paragraphs hammering home the same points with differing examples,it's not just for you but for everyone on the forum.

 

[Kyle M]

It's interesting you respond to the weaker points I made mainly in jest,I'm highlighting contradictions when I speak of trees etc
Trees don't have rights? Nature gave them a purpose,it has a right to grow and engage in photosynthesis or we all get into trouble if trees have no rights.

You're conflating what would happen if one, or several, trees are cut down because they don't have individual rights (something done every day for thousands of years) with what would happen if no trees existed on earth. A pretty bad conflation.

"If the above is violated how do you deal with this,if someone is aggressive toward you?
If you are violent toward the aggressor yet have no witnesses to your interaction how do you prove you had a right in this situation?"

That's what a court system is for, which was nearly perfected in English Common Law. The interesting thing about Common Law is that it does not require a state, and that is probably why it isn't taught in schools, but rather they emphasize legislation as the foundation to law and order in society, which it is not.

"What if a whole group of psychopaths like what we see in North Korea decide to attack you? How is this not war or mass murder if you defend yourself? Many people in North Korea will be bred to be psychopathic,they know no other way,I'm sure there are a few who are not."

Are you suggesting that using defensive force against many attackers is morally distinct from using defensive force against a single one? Are you also suggesting that if someone has been trained to be an assassin or something by the CIA, and shows up in your bedroom with a gun trained on you, and you have a gun at your side, it is not ok to shoot them? Do you have a real world example of how this distinction would actually matter or make sense?

"Its semantics then,your philosophy comes down to semantics and this is where the flaws appear.
The reason this system is not lasting or working is because is doesn't fit human behaviour,humans can't grow into the system,it has to work both ways,the human must become the system internally and externally it changes."( to add to this point internal and external are one and the same,no philosophy/ideal unless in tune with this rhythm will work for very long)

Actually the bulk of the libertarian (classical liberal, laissez-faire) system was adopted by the West over time and in different regions, leading to the greatest increase in wealth and standard of living ever seen on earth. The less libertarian cultures, like Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and East Asia, all stagnated until pockets of them too adopted some of the liberal Western tradition. What has happened since instituting some property rights in East Asia is simply the greatest increase in wealth and standard of living since the Industrial Revolution in the West.

For me libertarianism is where the deep subconscious is manifesting authoritarianism through the use of semantics,essentially a get out of jail free card for violence if you can convince enough people to interpret reality with the same meaning you have.

I'm willing to bet you act, in your day to day life, in a libertarian fashion towards your fellow man. Only in the ballot box do you use state authoritarianism. Or are you a violent criminal? If not, why not?

 

[Drareg]

Had to respond to a few particularly misguided bits:



Trees don't have rights, you don't have to justify killing trees. So called acts of God are not violations of the NAP because actions by non-human entities do not fall under the NAP. You can defend yourself against a bear, as a bear will defend itself against you, but to think that a bear attacking a human is similar to a human attacking a human is silly. Bears cannot be rationale in abstract thoughts, only in immediate survival actions.



The point is that people are not "asked" to pay taxes. If they were, then the system would be libertarian, rather than statist. In the tax code they even list the income tax as "voluntary," but my definition of voluntary does not include being thrown in a cage if you don't comply.



The same system got rid of Hitler as voted him in, and that is a good thing? Tens of millions of people dying domestically in Germany, and in the war effort, is the system "working?" I think that points outs how inherently bad the system is.




Human action creates our food, farmers and distributors and producers of farming equipment. The question is whether a centrally planned economy, or a property rights system with decentralized planning by individuals, is more effective at creating food and other goods and services for humans.

"The point is that people are not "asked" to pay taxes. If they were, then the system would be libertarian, rather than statist. In the tax code they even list the income tax as "voluntary," but my definition of voluntary does not include being thrown in a cage if you don't comply."

The point I was making was many people are willing to pay taxes if they are reasonable and are used for good works they can share in once built,community centres,roads etc.
it means the entrepreneurs can focus on running their restaurant as somebody else organises the building of a road,somewhere along all of this it has to go central even if another entrepreneur in the community goes collecting for money to build the road and doesn't call himself taxman or politican.

Libertarian puts a tax on your energy as you protect yourself,somebody at some point will try steal from you,you then have to investigate or fight the intruder.
Currency is time and energy stored.

 

[Kyle M]

The point I was making was many people are willing to pay taxes if they are reasonable and are used for good works they can share in once built,community centres,roads etc.
it means the entrepreneurs can focus on running their restaurant as somebody else organises the building of a road,somewhere along all of this it has to go central even if another entrepreneur in the community goes collecting for money to build the road and doesn't call himself taxman or politican.

Libertarian puts a tax on your energy as you protect yourself,somebody at some point will try steal from you,you then have to investigate or fight the intruder.
Currency is time and energy stored.

If people are willing to pay taxes without force, then why has no state in the history of human civilization ever operated on that voluntary basis, but rather uses the threat of violent force to extract taxes? Are you aware of the history of taxes and tax collectors?

When a person wants to outsource something, like building a road or security services, or growing food, or building computer parts, they hire people to do that. They either directly hire them, like an author hires an agent to represent them, or they indirectly hire them through market activity by buying goods or services that were produced by others. In that instance, when an individual voluntarily gives an amount of money or some other trade commodity in return for a good or service, you can say that particular individual is made wealthier by the transaction, as was the seller. Why? Because if that wasn't true, the two parties wouldn't have voluntarily performed the trade. This litmus test, of course, cannot be applied to state actions because they always use compulsion, so that individuals are not freely choosing what is in their subjective best interest Every time a market transaction occurs, wealth is increased in the world as a whole, every time a government transaction occurs, wealth is decreased.

 

[Drareg]

You're conflating what would happen if one, or several, trees are cut down because they don't have individual rights (something done every day for thousands of years) with what would happen if no trees existed on earth. A pretty bad conflation.




That's what a court system is for, which was nearly perfected in English Common Law. The interesting thing about Common Law is that it does not require a state, and that is probably why it isn't taught in schools, but rather they emphasize legislation as the foundation to law and order in society, which it is not.



Are you suggesting that using defensive force against many attackers is morally distinct from using defensive force against a single one? Are you also suggesting that if someone has been trained to be an assassin or something by the CIA, and shows up in your bedroom with a gun trained on you, and you have a gun at your side, it is not ok to shoot them? Do you have a real world example of how this distinction would actually matter or make sense?



Actually the bulk of the libertarian (classical liberal, laissez-faire) system was adopted by the West over time and in different regions, leading to the greatest increase in wealth and standard of living ever seen on earth. The less libertarian cultures, like Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and East Asia, all stagnated until pockets of them too adopted some of the liberal Western tradition. What has happened since instituting some property rights in East Asia is simply the greatest increase in wealth and standard of living since the Industrial Revolution in the West.



I'm willing to bet you act, in your day to day life, in a libertarian fashion towards your fellow man. Only in the ballot box do you use state authoritarianism. Or are you a violent criminal? If not, why not?

I'm conflating nothing in relation to trees as smaller areas who have lost trees have seen huge issue in the climate there like the Amazon for example,if trees have no rights locally this will create a culture of no respect for trees,humans are educated right now I the importance of trees yet they still will keep chopping them down until the tress are protected.

Your system then is open to corruption in the same manner the ideals of capitalism and other systems have been corrupted.
You can't have a system that allows for self defence sort of violence and then complain when the state uses violence against you,they will argue they are defending themselves against you because of your human nature,meaning and perceptions here-semantics then again. The elite currently think you are a violent peasant.
The origins of the word violence then is vehement,showing strong feeling,forceful,passion or intent. You will show this behaviour dealing with your claim of attacker in your bedroom.
We must ask the question if you invited the attacker back to your room,members of the CIA have nights off and socialise I'm sure.
You claimed hitlers war was mass murder,how is it not mass murder if America were to murder millions of North Koreans or Japanese(ww1) in claimed defence,you still murdered millions.
The point is your still involved with what the current system is.

"That's what a court system is for, which was nearly perfected in English Common Law. The interesting thing about Common Law is that it does not require a state, and that is probably why it isn't taught in schools, but rather they emphasize legisl"

Above you speak of a court system,centrally organised this is.
Common law is still corruptible,centralised and using force.

Your final paragraph emphasises my point,libertarianism is wide open to go down the road of capitalism,whatever is masquerading as capitalism now,libertarianism will go to the point of still being called libertarianism but will be corrupted into something else entirely.
Libertarianism is capitalism with less rules initially.
Do you believe that in spite of your hard work in libertarian society and building your property and land that somebody who works less than you and has less won't become envious? The envious individual will create a story that implicates you in corruption to fill his egos need,to justify his coming actions against you,then it will start all over again what we see now.

 

[Drareg]

If people are willing to pay taxes without force, then why has no state in the history of human civilization ever operated on that voluntary basis, but rather uses the threat of violent force to extract taxes? Are you aware of the history of taxes and tax collectors?

When a person wants to outsource something, like building a road or security services, or growing food, or building computer parts, they hire people to do that. They either directly hire them, like an author hires an agent to represent them, or they indirectly hire them through market activity by buying goods or services that were produced by others. In that instance, when an individual voluntarily gives an amount of money or some other trade commodity in return for a good or service, you can say that particular individual is made wealthier by the transaction, as was the seller. Why? Because if that wasn't true, the two parties wouldn't have voluntarily performed the trade. This litmus test, of course, cannot be applied to state actions because they always use compulsion, so that individuals are not freely choosing what is in their subjective best interest Every time a market transaction occurs, wealth is increased in the world as a whole, every time a government transaction occurs, wealth is decreased.

The restaurant entrepreneur can't afford to outsource the road,can't afford the time or money to pay for it.
He needs to get many people to chip in,so crowdfunding becomes the new centralised method in contemporary times,this allows the crowdfunding sites with time to get more power by siphoning money from the transactions. look at the power of Google/alphabet, Apple.
Restaurant entrepreneur still has to organise a centralised meeting to discuss plans with fellow investors.

If we say instead of tax man,individuals who will hurt you if you don't give them money toward things you don't agree with, its a better definition.
If we say pleasant gentleman collecting money while willing to organise everything necessary for things you do agree with we get a different picture.

Your system will still use violence but on its terms.
Libertarianism is basically resetting the current system capitalism to less rules and hope this seed doesn't grown into what the capitalist seed has,the seed is within the same environment surrounded by current human psychology.
You will need to marshal,libertarianism states that it's is willing to use violence when necessary.

 

[lvysaur]

Because if that wasn't true, the two parties wouldn't have voluntarily performed the trade. This litmus test, of course, cannot be applied to state actions because they always use compulsion, so that individuals are not freely choosing what is in their subjective best interest

I don't see any fundamental difference.

You can work for someone, and they will pay you. You choose an employer in this way, and if you feel you are expected to work too much for the reward given to you, you can find a different employer.

You can pay taxes to a government, and they'll let you live on their land. You choose a nation in this way, and if you feel that you are expected to pay too much for the privilege of living in that country, you can find a different country.

The only difference is the scale, and if you're saying that small scale power (employers) is more agreeable for people than large scale power (nations), then I agree. Practically speaking, changing nations is far more difficult than changing jobs.

I have a suspicion that hunter gatherers' higher level of equality was due to the need to rely on many people. When more people are necessary, their needs are taken more seriously.

 

[DaveFoster]

I think Drareg is correct on the first part of his initial response, as in the first line.

The problem can be solved by agreeing to a mediator for both parties.

The government is a poor mediator if either party does not want to mediate through the government.

A mediator with support of both parties (or all parties) is superior to a coercive mediator.

When you commit violence, you forego your choice of the mediator.

It's all about working things out with others and coming to a great understanding where everyone's needs are met.

If one party does not like the interaction, you have failed somewhere.

@Drareg
I like that you've brought up English common law. What do you think of panarchism?

 

[Drareg]

I think Drareg is correct on the first part of his initial response, as in the first line.

The problem can be solved by agreeing to a mediator for both parties.

The government is a poor mediator if either party does not want to mediate through the government.

A mediator with support of both parties (or all parties) is superior to a coercive mediator.

When you commit violence, you forego your choice of the mediator.

It's all about working things out with others and coming to a great understanding where everyone's needs are met.

If one party does not like the interaction, you have failed somewhere.

@Drareg
I like that you've brought up English common law. What do you think of panarchism?

Panarchism is interesting but my guess is no government will allow you to live under North Korean rule or Saudi Arabian rule in USA for example,somebody somewhere will milk this,living in USA but under the rule of a place that allows you to walk around balls naked could be an issue when taking the kids to school for example.

I do see places attempting to be like Monaco appearing in the future,obviously they will want less rules in these places than what Monaco has,the problem is when these places get set up it will require companies like Google,Apple and the big money groups to do it, relatively wealthy folk attempting to be sovereign individuals of sort will be blocked from the global economy as much as possible,look at what they are doing/can do to the uk,it's not all market reaction,it's hands directly attempting to screw them.
The big money corporate groups will be essentially with time just as corrupt and full of cronyism as the current state imo.

I do think countries will begin to compete for people in the next 20 years as many veer toward Asia ,Australia is kind of doing this already with lowering the 5 years work for residency,Australia are currently closing doors to chineses companies in what will potentially be the most stupid move in its history,these standards will get lower with time,any countries with population decreasing and aging will lower taxes and loosen the straight jacket of what is present now.
Aging populations require the young to stay and take care of them,the young are leaving and those staying are not having kids,mainly western countries.