Gyroscopic Investing

Libertarian666 wrote: I disagree that the "highly intelligent and independent-minded.... are bad at making a society". What is your evidence for this assertion, aside from citing the "common...fantasy of lone survivalism"?

Well there are two of approaches I could take. Number one would be empirical. Libertarian-minded people very rarely even try to form their own societies in the first place, whether historically or in contemporary times. Second, when they do, the result has always been failure. There are always reasons for these failures, of course, but failures they are. Destruction by hostile governments is nonetheless a failure. I want these experiments to succeed, I really do, but we have to face facts: they're failures. If you can provide counterexamples, I would love to hear about them!

Number two, theoretical. Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy that appeals far more to certain types of people than others. Said people tend to be highly intelligent, focus on the self instead of others, easily understand the working of systems, and embrace the "survival of the fittest" principle. Such people are highly adept at succeeding within today's non-libertarian societies, but are not noted for being particularly socially adroit. A society is a construct made up of individuals who voluntarily agree to forsake certain choice and options that may be optimally beneficial for themselves, and engage in certain other choices that may not be optimal for themselves, all in the interest of the nebulous concept of "social harmony." An example would be ritual, which is a critical piece of society, but that generally holds no appeal to Libertarian-minded people. Put frankly, most people who are not Libertarians are worse at making personally-optimal decisions and appreciate formalities, rituals, and customs, but these things things are critical to social cohesion. Libertarian-minded people, being instead highly attuned to personally-optimal options and minimally-attuned to socially-optimal options, therefore are not strong contributors to the social glue that is necessary to have a society. They need other people to contribute that glue. A society that consists of only Libertarian-minded people will not have enough and will become fractious, devolving into abrasive petty squabbling. This, at the risk of returning to empiricism, is the precise failure mode of modern attempts at deliberately creating Libertarian societies.


Please note that I am not arguing against the possibility of a largely stateless, un-governed society... just the idea that such a society would be fully or mostly populated by Libertarian-minded people. I expect that such a society would probably be rather conservative.

Sounds right to me!  But, I would just interject that post-modern libertarians are attuned to socially-optimal options as well as personally-optimal options.  No more Curly from City Slickers and more John Mackey of Whole Foods.

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I disagree that the "highly intelligent and independent-minded.... are bad at making a society". What is your evidence for this assertion, aside from citing the "common...fantasy of lone survivalism"?

Well there are two of approaches I could take. Number one would be empirical. Libertarian-minded people very rarely even try to form their own societies in the first place, whether historically or in contemporary times. Second, when they do, the result has always been failure. There are always reasons for these failures, of course, but failures they are. Destruction by hostile governments is nonetheless a failure. I want these experiments to succeed, I really do, but we have to face facts: they're failures. If you can provide counterexamples, I would love to hear about them!

Number two, theoretical. Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy that appeals far more to certain types of people than others. Said people tend to be highly intelligent, focus on the self instead of others, easily understand the working of systems, and embrace the "survival of the fittest" principle. Such people are highly adept at succeeding within today's non-libertarian societies, but are not noted for being particularly socially adroit. A society is a construct made up of individuals who voluntarily agree to forsake certain choice and options that may be optimally beneficial for themselves, and engage in certain other choices that may not be optimal for themselves, all in the interest of the nebulous concept of "social harmony." An example would be ritual, which is a critical piece of society, but that generally holds no appeal to Libertarian-minded people. Put frankly, most people who are not Libertarians are worse at making personally-optimal decisions and appreciate formalities, rituals, and customs, but these things things are critical to social cohesion. Libertarian-minded people, being instead highly attuned to personally-optimal options and minimally-attuned to socially-optimal options, therefore are not strong contributors to the social glue that is necessary to have a society. They need other people to contribute that glue. A society that consists of only Libertarian-minded people will not have enough and will become fractious, devolving into abrasive petty squabbling. This, at the risk of returning to empiricism, is the precise failure mode of modern attempts at deliberately creating Libertarian societies.


Please note that I am not arguing against the possibility of a largely stateless, un-governed society... just the idea that such a society would be fully or mostly populated by Libertarian-minded people. I expect that such a society would probably be rather conservative.

Of course all such experiments have "failed" in the long run. I have already explained why that is a necessary result, due to the unwillingness of governments to allow a demonstration of why they (governments) are an unnecessary evil.

But on the other hand, how many governmental societies have survived more than 100 years or so while bearing any resemblance to the way they were founded? The continuity of a name, e.g., the "United States of America", is not sufficient. I can't think of any examples other than possibly Switzerland, whose last revolution was in 1848. Is it a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the least statist countries in the world? Maybe.

As for your description of the typical libertarian personality, yes, they are mostly NTs in the Meyers-Briggs system. However, while it is true that (essentially arbitrary) formalities, rituals, and customs are critical to social cohesion in groups consisting primarily of SJs (which is one of the commonest types), this is not true of social cohesion WITHIN a group of NTs. NTs don't care about those things; they care about competence. Thus, it doesn't bother NTs if these arbitrary elements are absent.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I disagree that the "highly intelligent and independent-minded.... are bad at making a society". What is your evidence for this assertion, aside from citing the "common...fantasy of lone survivalism"?

Well there are two of approaches I could take. Number one would be empirical. Libertarian-minded people very rarely even try to form their own societies in the first place, whether historically or in contemporary times. Second, when they do, the result has always been failure. There are always reasons for these failures, of course, but failures they are. Destruction by hostile governments is nonetheless a failure. I want these experiments to succeed, I really do, but we have to face facts: they're failures. If you can provide counterexamples, I would love to hear about them!

Number two, theoretical. Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy that appeals far more to certain types of people than others. Said people tend to be highly intelligent, focus on the self instead of others, easily understand the working of systems, and embrace the "survival of the fittest" principle. Such people are highly adept at succeeding within today's non-libertarian societies, but are not noted for being particularly socially adroit. A society is a construct made up of individuals who voluntarily agree to forsake certain choice and options that may be optimally beneficial for themselves, and engage in certain other choices that may not be optimal for themselves, all in the interest of the nebulous concept of "social harmony." An example would be ritual, which is a critical piece of society, but that generally holds no appeal to Libertarian-minded people. Put frankly, most people who are not Libertarians are worse at making personally-optimal decisions and appreciate formalities, rituals, and customs, but these things things are critical to social cohesion. Libertarian-minded people, being instead highly attuned to personally-optimal options and minimally-attuned to socially-optimal options, therefore are not strong contributors to the social glue that is necessary to have a society. They need other people to contribute that glue. A society that consists of only Libertarian-minded people will not have enough and will become fractious, devolving into abrasive petty squabbling. This, at the risk of returning to empiricism, is the precise failure mode of modern attempts at deliberately creating Libertarian societies.


Please note that I am not arguing against the possibility of a largely stateless, un-governed society... just the idea that such a society would be fully or mostly populated by Libertarian-minded people. I expect that such a society would probably be rather conservative.

Of course all such experiments have "failed" in the long run. I have already explained why that is a necessary result, due to the unwillingness of governments to allow a demonstration of why they (governments) are an unnecessary evil.

But on the other hand, how many governmental societies have survived more than 100 years or so while bearing any resemblance to the way they were founded? The continuity of a name, e.g., the "United States of America", is not sufficient. I can't think of any examples other than possibly Switzerland, whose last revolution was in 1848. Is it a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the least statist countries in the world? Maybe.

As for your description of the typical libertarian personality, yes, they are mostly NTs in the Meyers-Briggs system. However, while it is true that (essentially arbitrary) formalities, rituals, and customs are critical to social cohesion in groups consisting primarily of SJs (which is one of the commonest types), this is not true of social cohesion WITHIN a group of NTs. NTs don't care about those things; they care about competence. Thus, it doesn't bother NTs if these arbitrary elements are absent.

1) If being conquered by SOME sort of government force (or more specifically, the players WITHIN government... government isn't even really anything more than a word to describe an ambiguous entity.  It's the people that ultimately make decisions), we essentially have two choices as any potential free society.  a) Be conquered, or b) allow a government that is more accountable to the wishes of our residents to exist.

You seem to want to disallow the latter at the risk of the former, potentially far-worse scenario.

2) Just because a government breaks down into some new government, or society has a revolution, does NOT mean that the government didn't serve some useful purpose in the meantime.  Once again, if some overwhelming central force is inevitable, having SOMETHING that is more accountable to the wishes of the residents of an area could be extremely useful in preventing a far-worse alternative.


Overall, you're making a VERY good argument as to why anarcho-capitalist societies are obsolete on their face... they strive for perfection at the expense of added catastrophic risk to "pretty good."  And libertarians being logical, planning-minded folks, aren't going to move somewhere where there are huge risks to their wealth where only modest risks to their wealth currently exist.

To take a note from Kshartle, especially in conversations like this one, we should avoid using the term "government" in such humanizing terms.  Let's for a second assume the moral conclusion of anarchism and just label government "an organized system of force run by individuals."

The only problem is, that doesn't tell us everything I need to know.  I'd rather have a 100% chance of living in the U.S. than a 10% chance of my libertarian island being invaded by North Korea.  Not all "organized systems of force" are the same.  There are many of them throughout the world, and sometimes allowing one to grow around you that is more accountable to your interests is better than leaving the risk open that a far-worse one will see your resources and invade to take them.

To me, it's not that libertarians "can't form a society."  It's that they secretly value the protection/freedom benefit/cost scenario that it provides (at least to some degree) to the alternative of being a 100% free society, but don't like the moral and political implications of that conclusion.  And libertarians being who they are, are very good at responsible, risk-conscious, strategic individualist decision-making.  That's why you'll never be able to attract many of them to "Technoville."  The value proposition of being a U.S. citizen is better for most productive individuals.  And libertarians know value!

What we're really taking about here are the failure modes of various societies. It seems like we've actually reached agreement on a few things:

1. The typical failure mode of non-government society is conquest by a government society.
2. The typical failure mode of government society is conquest by another government society.
3. An additional failure mode of government society is internal transformation into a highly oppressive exploiter state that eventually collapses under its own weight.

moda0306 wrote: a) Be conquered, or b) allow a government that is more accountable to the wishes of our residents to exist.

You seem to want to disallow the latter at the risk of the former, potentially far-worse scenario.

+1.  That's another major difference between a libertarian and a post-modern libertarian.  Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

If you reduce a libertarian society down to its ultimate roots, it will be a minarchy.  The question is: do we get there from the bottoms up like Liberland or the top down via reform?  I say the latter is far more realistic at the current time.

Pointedstick wrote: 3. An additional failure mode of government society is internal transformation into a highly oppressive exploiter state that eventually collapses under its own weight.

...which is due to issuing debt, debasing money and other contractual power "obligations".  Greece is a modern day example, replete with starving citizens.

We'd go a long way towards a libertarian society by banning debt from ever being issued by government.

Although, I have to say I may be changing my mind again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çatalhöyük

Çatalhöyük was composed entirely of domestic buildings, with no obvious public buildings. While some of the larger ones have rather ornate murals, the purpose of some rooms remain unclear.

[...]

Çatalhöyük had no apparent social classes, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found in Paleolithic cultures.

Archaeologists haven't found any evidence of government. No public buildings, no palaces, no monuments, no armories, no treasuries, no barracks, etc. Just houses. Not even any temples. It's fascinating. And the city seems to have lasted in this state for thousands of years.

Of course eventually it was conquered, like they all were. The killer app of government-less society seems to be how to provide appropriate defense against invaders without a full-time warrior class.

Pointedstick wrote: Of course eventually it was conquered, like they all were. The killer app of government-less society seems to be how to provide appropriate defense against invaders without a full-time warrior class.

Exactly.  And it won't be possible until the returns on violence are equalized between individual citizens and states.  All authority is ultimately backed by force.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: 3. An additional failure mode of government society is internal transformation into a highly oppressive exploiter state that eventually collapses under its own weight.

...which is due to issuing debt, debasing money and other contractual power "obligations".  Greece is a modern day example, replete with starving citizens.

We'd go a long way towards a libertarian society by banning debt from ever being issued by government.

Absolutely, as long as the citizens can make the government follow that rule!