Found on Facebook.
Video: ‘Why Libertarianism is So Dangerous’
By Jill Pyeatt on May 2, 2013 9:12 PM
Jill Pyeatt
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Then there’s the “checkers vs. chess” aspect of this. Hand to hand gangs pre-1945 (checkers) vs. ICBM and WMD now (chess).
The nonarcho model cannot and does not address the modern world, with vastly more complex “gangs” and weaponry.
Some “gangs” are more harmful than others…buy it, some don’t.
North Korea and Switzerland are gang-run. It’s only a matter of time for the Swiss gangs to behave like Kim Jong Un.
Recover from that thinking, or not!
We need to replace centralized government with decentralized governance. The difference between anarchism and minarchism fades away when top-down monolithic governments are replaced with bottom-up associations of property owners who form parallel/overlapping federations that are each scaled to the geographic scope of the problem they’re trying to solve.
There should be no mayors or governors or presidents. There should only be e.g. water boards and police commissions and defense councils.
Government should be blown to pieces.
Most of us who love freedom agree with the goal of anarchism. Basically, every individual should be in charge of their own life without other individuals using force or fraud or fear to subjugate them.
Unfortunately, this ideal does not jibe with human history or human nature. With the help of habituation and technology we can come closer to the ideal, but we need to remain realistic and keep our feet on the ground.
What needs to be acknowledged is law and order, in the form of constitutions and just laws, DOES increase freedom, as long as the people are determined to safeguard their rights and hold governments accountable. Absent constitutions, absent laws, the rule of might prevails. And the rule of might is precisely what people fear about anarchism.
Without virtue and morality, you can’t have freedom. Virtually everyone accepts this, because it’s obvious. Force, coercion and fraud are part of human nature and can only be reduced via moral habituation.
In order to get and be real, Libertarians must acknowledge that sometimes governments and/or governing institutions help habituate humans to become more virtuous and more moral and consequently more free. Each institution must be judged on its own merits, rather than simply dismissing all institutions and all authorities.
The problem with dissolving the state and doing away with laws is it could be a prelude to outright gang rule, fascism, or more likely, direct domination by banks and their corporate allies. The latter is the likely outcome if we continue to entertain vain illusions and believe in the crooked salesmen on tv.
If people no longer have ‘rights’, then feudalistic reentrenchment and/or oligarchy will eventually occur. Given the collective challenges faced by humanity, we just don’t have time for this kind of regression, especially if we continue to ignore ecology.
The best we can hope for in our lifetime is that human morality improves to the point where people are no longer so afraid of being free and being responsible for their actions. The best means of getting there is a valid constitutional order where people’s rights are respected, and where there are clear limits on force, fraud, and fearmongering.
Property owners would demand protection services, and somebody would quickly rise up to meet that demand.
This hypothesis has already been subject to empirical testing.
It also comes to how you view “Anarchy” and what it means to you. For some, Anarchy is equivalent to Savagery where visions of a Mad Max sort of world comes to them, and that would truly be a horror of a world to live in.
For others Anarchy is a simply a world where no bullies stealing from others. It is a world where people do not use violence or threats thereof to achieve goals, and where people freely choose their own lifestyles and destiny.
In my own humble opinion, Libertarians come in two types: the Republic Libertarians and the Anarchist Libertarians. This is a road that starts with the principle of “Less government” but that quickly comes to a Y split where the Republic types still insist that a “gang” running things, though just their gang, and the Anarchist types insist that no “Gang” should run things, and from what I can see had lead to much bickering and nasty political fights.
“Many Libertarians are close to the anarchy camp.”
And some are in it.
Images of imperialism and socialist Canadians rioting at the result of a hockey game are the images used in this “worst case scenario”.
This is satire, correct?
Many Libertarians are close to the anarchy camp.
I didn’t agree with everything in the video, but it was one person’s statement, and I thought it was worth posting.
I guess it all depends on what “Libertarianism” means to you. For some it just means less taxes and no undeclared wars….but for others “Libertarianism” means no more thugs, gangs and oppressors running the show.
Its all in how you look at it…or don’t look at it.
The maker of this video is not describing libertarianism, but is convoluting a stateless society (anarchy) into chaos and hooliganism.
As such, the video lacks credibility.
Never thought of it that way, interesting.