How Does A Libertarian Society Avoid Collectivisation?

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK. the Mises UK Council, Mises UK Faculty or Mises UK members. Membership of this forum is open to anyone world wide who is interested in civil discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

How Does A Libertarian Society Avoid Collectivisation?

Post by Tom Rogers » Sun May 13, 2018 11:18 am

[deleted]
Last edited by Tom Rogers on Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Clayton
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:24 pm

Re: How Does A Libertarian Society Avoid Collectivisation?

Post by Clayton » Sun May 13, 2018 6:36 pm

Tom Rogers wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 11:18 am
Libertarians talk a lot about ‘collectives’. The idea is that any collective group that makes decisions on its own account is an affront to individual liberty, as collective personalities embody moral sovereignty over individuals, which is a form of tyranny.
Nonsense. Liberty is the single most powerful catalyst of collective action and it is precisely for this reason that libertarians espouse it. "Division of labor", "specialization", "entrepreneurship" - these are all cooperative (collective) modes of action ...



Any form of collective action that is based on consensus is automatically compatible with liberty -- the free market can be thought of as a gigantic consensus-making machine.
In the view of the libertarian, all group-based decision-making must be consented-to, therefore the only groups that are acceptable to libertarians are voluntary associations of individuals.
It's called consensus decision-making. A board-meeting is a great example of this form of organization. No one is ever required to attend a board-meeting and anyone is free to leave at any time.

The paternalistic mindset always struggles with this idea because the paternalistic mindset views any kind of group as a kind of de facto family. This primitive tendency comes from the long evolution of the human brain in the Ancestral Environment - a tribal environment. There, the chief is not a chair of a board, he is literally the head of an extended family, a genetic group whose germ-line interests are more or less directly aligned with the whim and will of the chief. That is to say, the tribal chief is the germ-line's solution to the problem of winning the inter-species competition by accelerating evolution on the software level (the human mind and social behavior) instead of at the hardware level (slow spread of genetic novelties through breeding). The chief's decisions - like the interests of the germ-line - may not align with the interests of the individual. But the evolution of the group as a whole is accelerated by the chief's willingness to sacrifice the individual for the greater good.

This stage of evolution has served its purpose and it is no longer useful. With the advent of artificial genetics, artificial robotics and artificial intelligence, we are now able to accelerate evolution by many orders of magnitude over the old world model of sacrificing the individual on the altar of the germ-line. Its time has past and like an elderly grand-parent, it needs to be retired with quiet dignity.
how re-collectivisation could be avoided
As long as the individual has her own appetites, the collective will is not the default. Basically, we're not ants, or bees.
How do you address the fact that not everybody will wish to participate in services that are, by their nature, of collective benefit?

Or is there within libertarianism an acknowledgement that some services are by their nature social and must benefit everyone?
This is the supposed "public goods problem". Steven Landsburg has written at length about this issue - as has David Friedman and many others - and the basic point that gets overlooked by leftists on the issue of externalities requiring the production of public goods is that they are always a symptom of a deficiency in the law itself, usually a deficiency that is created by the very organ that is supposed to be solving public goods problems (that is, the State).

In these discussions, I'm always reminded of that quote by Wittgenstein: "'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." Specifically, there is this idea that "Well, your theory is good and all, but guess what, there's still a State and it's still going to produce public goods as people think it ought to, your economic theories be damned!" And this is quite true. But there's no point in having such a discussion because it is just signaling, part of a game-theoretic exchange. It's like dogs baring their fangs before deciding whether to fight or run. The witting pro-public-goods argument boils down to saying this, in other words: "We don't care about the facts of the consequences of our actions, we're going to do what we want to do. We take the fact that we can just keep doing what we choose in the face of its self-destructive consequences to be proof that your theory is bullshit." Like drunk-driving, if the consequences were only self-destructive, we would be happy to let Nature take out the trash, as it were. But since your reckless decision-making affects others, it will not be Nature alone who is pushing back or, stated another way, Nature will be pushing back through the conduit of political/economic blowback, in addition to the well-known natural consequences.

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: How Does A Libertarian Society Avoid Collectivisation?

Post by Tom Rogers » Sun May 13, 2018 8:35 pm

[deleted]
Last edited by Tom Rogers on Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anarcho-Conservative
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:50 pm

Re: How Does A Libertarian Society Avoid Collectivisation?

Post by Anarcho-Conservative » Sun May 13, 2018 8:59 pm

In my honest opinion, collectivism and any other types of group think should be avoided at all costs.

We as Libertarians should not be ashamed to show the whole world that we are individuals with fresh ideas about how we as a society can prosper without the need for a state that has always rejected 'thinking outside the box' and would rather just keep the status quo whilst citizens suffer because they don't know what tomorrow brings.

We are all different people and it is that individualism that defines who we are and how we see the world without being told what we can and can't say as people are too 'offended'.

There is nothing wrong with belonging to groups but it doesn't mean to say that we should think the same without thinking over it is right or wrong.

Our brains are programmed to interpret what we see as we experience new things and it is that programming that defines us as individuals as we all go through different experiences.

The state may say that we are just sheep to follow those who are of 'higher intellect'. I say breakaway from it and challenge everything we see and before long, people will rise to it and those with 'higher intellect' will be exposed as cowardly fraudsters who can do nothing to us but accept defeat!

User avatar
William
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: How Does A Libertarian Society Avoid Collectivisation?

Post by William » Mon May 14, 2018 11:16 pm

Some random thoughts:

-A key phrase may be "methodoligical individualism": that is a tool to analyse the world, not a metaphysical cliam

-the "custom", habit, tradition, or whatever you may call the plethora of knowledge that is pre- and/or trans- rational and often inarticulate that make up the bulk of our interactions of individuals, personality and acknowledging the culture, institutional and limitations of "purely rational"/cartesian analysis.

-understand that what was built are "robust systems" that can take a lot of stress and Jermaid's and "crisis" type minds from our own individual minds or others are to be largely ignored unless we have direct skin in the game and/or put our abstract thoughts out in open systems where they can be tested, scrutinized, utilized, and judged outside of our own judgments
I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice'.
F.A Hayek

Post Reply