Professor Kling, a long-time libertarian, points out that he was mugged, and takes the opportunity to reflect about whether libertarianism is workable as it relates to public safety. Maybe neighborhood watches can assist, maybe private security can’t.
Hypothetical libertarianism emerges from the woodwork to say, of course it’s logically c…
Professor Kling, a long-time libertarian, points out that he was mugged, and takes the opportunity to reflect about whether libertarianism is workable as it relates to public safety. Maybe neighborhood watches can assist, maybe private security can’t.
Hypothetical libertarianism emerges from the woodwork to say, of course it’s logically consistent with libertarianism to have communal policing. Huh?
If you’re just saying it’s consistent with the logic of libertarian philosophy, great! although that didn’t seem to be the point of the post.
If you want to argue it’s a workable approach for organizing society as a realistic matter, by all means, but good luck!
Personally, I think you’ll quickly be mugged by reality if you try to reduce communal trust to the merely transactional and find the arm’s-length price for the willingness to put one’s life on the line for another.
“Personally, I think you’ll quickly be mugged by reality if you try to reduce communal trust to the merely transactional….” Thank you for reinforcing my point. No libertarian worth his/her salt reduces communal trust to the merely transactional. Instead, they’ll reduce matters to the voluntary — where feasible — such that all manner of experiments get unleashed until community members land on configurations that are more effective than traditional territorial monopolies. Public police, while generally brave first responders, operate in an incentive system that consistently fails on net. And clearly it failed in this case. Your thought, such as it is, is that we have to do things that fail over and over lest we be “mugged by reality.” Yet he was quite literally mugged. The whole country is suffering from our clinging to the status quo. Crime keeps going up. Why wouldn’t enduring a crime cause one to reflect a bit more on the inadequacies of the status quo—namely standard public policing? That’s all I’m asking.
My thought wasn’t that we have to do things that fail over and over, just that when someone points out practical challenges to a libertarian utopia, it’s typical to see standard libertarian mantras trotted back out like unleashing thousands of communal experiments.
It’s sort of like the equivalent of the communist response when someone says communism didn’t work out so well in Russia, Vietnam, China, etc. Yeah, but those communists weren’t worth their salt…
Perhaps the fundamental answer is that aside from a handful of intelligent, motivated individuals like yourself, most of us are not capable or willing to live in such a voluntary society.
Forgive me, but please think about what you're saying. First, "when someone points out practical challenges to a libertarian utopia" they are arguing from a position of crowding out in which there are few to no opportunities to experiment in the manner I'm describing. There is literally a monopoly that is enforced. Now, it's NOT at all like communist responses, because all of those experiments were tried, whereas entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, and civic innovators are simply not given opportunities to experiment locally. This is a pragmatic point, not an idealistic one. Finally, "most of us are not capable or willing to live in such a voluntary society" is a contradiction in terms. If you were willing to do it, it would be voluntary. What you're saying is *I'm not willing to overcome my failure of imagination or my status quo bias and question the value of status quo systems in ANY jurisdiction in my country, so I will continue to lend my support to the systems that are failing, or double down on the empty promise of political reforms.* All that means is that you're continuing to worship *democracy* -- the illusion of choice -- all controlled by people more powerful than you. Thank you for your honesty, though. You'd rather have faith in suits and jackboots than creative people working together locally to solve problems.
I’ll set aside that you basically repeated the communist complaint that entrepreneurs and civic innovators haven’t been given a real chance yet, because government monopoly.
As to the second point, it’s not a contradiction in terms. You can’t have a voluntary society if it is comprised of three libertarian dudes worshiping Ayn Rand. You need critical mass. You can’t or won’t get it if the common organizing principle is just the quid pro quo or you-do-you-and-I-do-me.
I’ll set aside that you basically repeated the communist complaint that public policing hasn’t been given a real chance yet, because capitalist utopians.
"As to the second point, it’s not a contradiction in terms." Uh huh. "You can’t have a voluntary society if it is comprised of [sic, composed of] three libertarian dudes worshiping Ayn Rand." Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and was committed to government police monopolies. If you're going to ascribe views to me or anyone else, you'd better know your stuff.
"You need critical mass. You can’t or won’t get it if the common organizing principle is just the quid pro quo or you-do-you-and-I-do-me." Think about this long and hard. Read my original criticism. And kindly stop ascribing views to me and others I've never held. You're getting lost and it shows.
Professor Kling, a long-time libertarian, points out that he was mugged, and takes the opportunity to reflect about whether libertarianism is workable as it relates to public safety. Maybe neighborhood watches can assist, maybe private security can’t.
Hypothetical libertarianism emerges from the woodwork to say, of course it’s logically consistent with libertarianism to have communal policing. Huh?
If you’re just saying it’s consistent with the logic of libertarian philosophy, great! although that didn’t seem to be the point of the post.
If you want to argue it’s a workable approach for organizing society as a realistic matter, by all means, but good luck!
Personally, I think you’ll quickly be mugged by reality if you try to reduce communal trust to the merely transactional and find the arm’s-length price for the willingness to put one’s life on the line for another.
“Personally, I think you’ll quickly be mugged by reality if you try to reduce communal trust to the merely transactional….” Thank you for reinforcing my point. No libertarian worth his/her salt reduces communal trust to the merely transactional. Instead, they’ll reduce matters to the voluntary — where feasible — such that all manner of experiments get unleashed until community members land on configurations that are more effective than traditional territorial monopolies. Public police, while generally brave first responders, operate in an incentive system that consistently fails on net. And clearly it failed in this case. Your thought, such as it is, is that we have to do things that fail over and over lest we be “mugged by reality.” Yet he was quite literally mugged. The whole country is suffering from our clinging to the status quo. Crime keeps going up. Why wouldn’t enduring a crime cause one to reflect a bit more on the inadequacies of the status quo—namely standard public policing? That’s all I’m asking.
My thought wasn’t that we have to do things that fail over and over, just that when someone points out practical challenges to a libertarian utopia, it’s typical to see standard libertarian mantras trotted back out like unleashing thousands of communal experiments.
It’s sort of like the equivalent of the communist response when someone says communism didn’t work out so well in Russia, Vietnam, China, etc. Yeah, but those communists weren’t worth their salt…
Perhaps the fundamental answer is that aside from a handful of intelligent, motivated individuals like yourself, most of us are not capable or willing to live in such a voluntary society.
Forgive me, but please think about what you're saying. First, "when someone points out practical challenges to a libertarian utopia" they are arguing from a position of crowding out in which there are few to no opportunities to experiment in the manner I'm describing. There is literally a monopoly that is enforced. Now, it's NOT at all like communist responses, because all of those experiments were tried, whereas entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, and civic innovators are simply not given opportunities to experiment locally. This is a pragmatic point, not an idealistic one. Finally, "most of us are not capable or willing to live in such a voluntary society" is a contradiction in terms. If you were willing to do it, it would be voluntary. What you're saying is *I'm not willing to overcome my failure of imagination or my status quo bias and question the value of status quo systems in ANY jurisdiction in my country, so I will continue to lend my support to the systems that are failing, or double down on the empty promise of political reforms.* All that means is that you're continuing to worship *democracy* -- the illusion of choice -- all controlled by people more powerful than you. Thank you for your honesty, though. You'd rather have faith in suits and jackboots than creative people working together locally to solve problems.
I’ll set aside that you basically repeated the communist complaint that entrepreneurs and civic innovators haven’t been given a real chance yet, because government monopoly.
As to the second point, it’s not a contradiction in terms. You can’t have a voluntary society if it is comprised of three libertarian dudes worshiping Ayn Rand. You need critical mass. You can’t or won’t get it if the common organizing principle is just the quid pro quo or you-do-you-and-I-do-me.
I’ll set aside that you basically repeated the communist complaint that public policing hasn’t been given a real chance yet, because capitalist utopians.
"As to the second point, it’s not a contradiction in terms." Uh huh. "You can’t have a voluntary society if it is comprised of [sic, composed of] three libertarian dudes worshiping Ayn Rand." Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and was committed to government police monopolies. If you're going to ascribe views to me or anyone else, you'd better know your stuff.
"You need critical mass. You can’t or won’t get it if the common organizing principle is just the quid pro quo or you-do-you-and-I-do-me." Think about this long and hard. Read my original criticism. And kindly stop ascribing views to me and others I've never held. You're getting lost and it shows.