No matter what, I don't see how an legislation can create freedoms.
Go to Somalia.
Then try saying that again.
Incidentally, I'd put "hard" libertarianism in much the same place as communism - nice idea, wouldn't work in practise.
Except full-fledged, second stage communism (more commonly called anarchism)
does work, just not in groups much larger than
Dunbar's number, since, in the absence of a central power structure enforcing order, one must rely upon mutual dependence and respect, which have little to no effect when a criminal can easily strike outside their personal circle of familiarity, or a group of criminals can conspire to coerce a population outside their own to do their work for them.
In small, tight knit groups a criminal cannot properly exist, because no matter their victim they alienate the rest of the group, which can either violently deal with them or without which they otherwise cannot survive. There's also the matter of personally knowing their potential victims, and so being more sympathetic to them, since very few criminals are proper sociopaths. In larger societies, their victims are strangers, and they are not dependent on the same social circle as the victim, and without a central authority to dole out justice in such cases, you end up with the victim's families and friends taking the matters into their own hands, while the family and friends of the criminal will stand by him, leading to conflict and fragmentation. In a state of conflict, a charismatic (or cunning) member of a group can sway said group, becoming a de facto leader, and so you get petty warlordism, and less fragmentation as the leaders struggle against each other, and the weak fall, leaving their followers either dead or in the thrall of the victor. Should one warlord gain the upper hand, their power grows exponentially as they bring weaker ones under their control, until you get a full-fledged dictatorship. Of course that's simplified a bit, and such processes usually took generations, and fell apart upon the dictator's death, but the essence is the same. Modern governments are the evolution of that (in most places at least, others are still in earlier stages), and are the result of efforts to remove the brutality and risk of dictatorships, deciding to get rid of them and go back to stage one is just silly.
Not only is there the problem of fragmentation and warlordism without a central authority: logistics and infrastructure also suffer, so that everyone is essentially reduced to a farmer and/or petty craftsman, and modern
luxuries like healthcare and sanitation can't exist, let alone things like electricity and transportation.
Hard-line libertarianism is just outright silly, as it boils down to "but what if we like, got rid of all the people who at least have to look like they're helping us to keep their jobs, and let people who have no obligation not to just kill us if it's the more profitable route run things, that'll be great!" At least anarchism visibly functions in a primitive context.
Poll
Author
Topic: Lol Polaticks (Read 3861 times)