Should this Be the New National Anthem?

[Anonymous]

Of whichever nation you happen to live in. I agree with the lyrics, they're 100% spot on (well, maybe not the Bitcoin bit).

[abc3643]

No, of course not.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”
― John Rogers

The problem with libertarianism and objectivism is that these are naïve philosophies.

This is a bit hard to explain, but, in system dynamics, there is something called emergent behavior. Emergent behavior of a system looks like the behavior of the members of the system acting in a coördinated fashion, but, what is really happening is that the members of the system are following their own rules within the system and the resultant apparent "system behavior" just naturally occurs.

Here are two examples:

1. A school of fish swimming.
2. A flock of birds flying.
In these cases, the way in which these animals move looks like they are all talking to each other and making a group decision, and then everyone follows it. That's not what happens at all. Instead, each animal is like "Hey, I'm going to do what the other guy is doing because there's safety in numbers.", so once one (the leader) does a new action, all the others (the followers) do it too.

Here's another example: Synchronizing metronomes.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5v5eBf2KwF8

So, why do I bring this up?

Libertarians want to be free from governments and constraints. I can't blame them for thinking that way because governments are composed of humans and humans fuck-up so it is easy to get pissed at them.

But, humanity itself BEGAN with us all as libertarians doing our own thing.

And what happened? Emergent behavior...

Our societies and governments exist because (libertarian) human activities over the past 12,000 or so years have led to the development of civilization.

And why is this good? Because it prevents you from being killed.

I don't want to go too far off on a tangent, but, for a civilization to function, we all have to give up some freedoms so we don't kill each other. But, the upside is the idea of "United We Stand" - your society goes to bat for you. We look out for our own so to speak.

And that's the big difference with libertarians. They don't want to do that; they want to be free to take care of themselves. That's understandable, but it's not for the good of the society they live in. If a libertarian really wanted to be a libertarian, he or she would become live away from all forms of society - become a true anarchist and survivalist - become a human wild animal.

... but they don't. And why is that? Because they like medicine... and a steady food and water supply... and feeling safe from enemies.

And, also, because every libertarian over 40 who isn't a hardcore idiot knows at an instinctive level these truisms about life:

1. There is no such thing as rights; that is fiction. You don't have a right to survive or be free. Sure, we expect you to do what you can to survive and be free - that's human nature - but you don't have a right to it. Do you want "rights"? Make them yourself and get weapons and have more than anybody else.
2. (But you really can't have more than everybody else so...) If you go to war against the world, you will lose.
3. You live at the mercy of the rest of us. If you are enough of an asshole or disturbance or threat, we'll kill you. It's just that simple. (*)

And, so, libertarians remain members of our society because, deep down, they know it is in their best self-interests to play along. But, they can still whine like in that libertarian national anthem.

(*) Read about the murder of Ken Rex McElroy, shot in broad daylight by multiple shooters and dozens of witnesses. The town of Skidmore MO kept its mouth shut; he was a profound asshole and they killed him.

https://morbidology.com/the-town-that-got-away-with-murder/

[Asker]

There is much that I would like to respond to here, but I'll focus on just this:
"For a civilization to function, we all have to give up some freedoms so we don't kill each other"
Libertarians understand that basic laws protecting the rights (however you believe those rights came about) of the individuals who comprise society are needed. To the extent that I do no harm to anyone else, I should be allowed to do anything I please, and live as I see fit. No government should have any say in this. We have laws against murder and theft, and it makes sense to have these laws, otherwise there would be chaos.

[abc3643]

Yes, but you wrote this:
"To the extent that I do no harm to anyone else, "

Who is the judge of that?
You?
Those who you don't claim you harm but they feel you did?
How much harm is acceptable?
How do we even measure "harm"?
>>>> Who is the arbiter of these things?

That's at the root of societies and their justice systems.

The rules that are created by a society are done so to protect its members from killing each other and destroying the society itself.

Without those rules, "To the extent that I do no harm to anyone else, " is subject to personal interpretation and there will never be universally agreed-upon interpretations and that will ultimately lead to violence and chaos and disunity and the destruction of the society and all the good that has created.

We instinctively know this, so them members of a society give the society its legislative and judiciary powers to be used in an idealistically equal and fair manner with no preference for any member over any other member.

[Asker]

"Who is the judge of that?
You?"
Oh come on. Are you going to sit here and tell me you don't know when someone is working against your best interests, when someone is trying to (or succeeding in) harming you (ex. a murderer)?

[abc3643]

I don't think you understand.
The bottom line here is conflict.
Conflict exists because people can't agree on things and, even if they do agree in the short run, there will eventually be something that they disagree about.

What people often disagree about is when they are harmed or even if there is harm at all.
This is why there is an entire field in the legal profession called "tort law".
And how do these disagreements get settled?
In the judicial system that (objectively) resolves the dispute between the two parties disagreeing about the alleged harm.
Without tort law and a judicial system, you get family feuds and, on a larger scale, wars.
Even the Founding Fathers knew this which is why Article III of the US Constitution gives the US Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases in which there is a dispute between the states. And these happen frequently.

(more)

[abc3643]

For instance, in the October 2020 Supreme Court term was the famous case "Texas v. Pennsylvania" in which "Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily prevent Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from certifying their 2020 election results because changes to those states' election procedures in light of the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Constitution."

Texas felt its citizens were harmed because how those states altered their election laws in response to COVID-19 changed the outcome of the election.

The Supreme Court threw out the case.
www.scotusblog.com/.../

So, there's a perfect example. Texas says it was harmed - and perhaps it was since they voted for Trump. But SCOTUS says "How those states run their elections is none of your business per the Constitution. Thus, you have nothing to actually complain about."

What if there was no Constitutional provision for elections or a SCOTUS to interpret them?
What would Texas do? Fight a war with PA, GA, MI, and WI? Get all pissy and prevent people from those states traveling or moving to TX? Maybe...
But that doesn't happen because we have laws and a judicial process just like the Founders had the foresight to know what needed.

[abc3643]

=====

Parenthetically, I wanted to discuss this because it's a teachable moment.
"Are you going to sit here and tell me you don't know when someone is working against your best interests,"

So what if someone is working against my best interests? It may be in their best interests to do so. Whose interests should prevail? Theirs? Mine?
We have judicial systems to determine this. And what happens when you don't have a judicial system for that? You get wars.

Anyway, here's the teachable moment part.
In economics and games and decision theory, there is something called "Pareto Optimality".
A situation is Pareto Optimal if no party can improve its situation without harming the situation of at least one other party. Pareto Optimality doesn't make any statements or judgments about who should be in that state, but just that the state exists. In life, we are confronted with Pareto Optimality all the time. For instance, any "zero-sum game" that doesn't end in a tie. For example, in baseball, there are no ties; for one team to improve its position in the standings, it must beat another team who then suffers a lower position in the standings. So, a baseball game is a Pareto Optimal situation; for one team to win, the other team must lose.

[abc3643]

Hey, you might be interested in this:
It's a really good description of torts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort

[KostasKouvalis]

I gotta tell you something, you are a fucking awesome person! LOL

Yeah, I'm with you on the bitcoin. I'm not in favor of the gold either. There's only so much of it. If it were up to ME, I would revert back to a bartering and favor for a favor system. Then we wouldn't have to worry about taxes or money at all.

Most of the other stuff I agree with, though maybe not 100% on the free movement. I think we should still have border patrol to vet people, but we should get rid of passports and visas.

So overall, this would be an ideal society, but in practice it could never happened. It talked about "actions being voluntary" and I wanna ask you if you guys have forced jury duty in New Zealand?

Oh, and this reminds me, weren't you gonna send me some music before your computer crashed?

[Asker]

Yes, you're right. I was going to send you an example of the type of music I might listen to, but when I went over to YouTube the computer froze.
In Australia they're FORCED to vote. Can you believe it? Even if you think all the politicians stink, you still have to pick one. What a load of crap!

[Asker]

It worked this time :D

[KostasKouvalis]

A lot of countries have that, but in most places you can just pencil someone in, even a fictional character and they won't do anything. I think the one that's really stupid is Brazil's. Anyone who gets married or born to a Brazilian citizen, automatically gets Brazilian citizenship. And as a Brazilian citizen you are obligated to vote in Brazil's elections, even if you've never lived there.
One of my professors was married to a Brazilian guy and said she and her kids had to travel to the Brazilian embassy 2 and a half hours away to vote in their elections. How ridiculous is THAT!

[KostasKouvalis]

Thanks Cassie

[jshm2]

Not that shit.

It needs to be something more upbeat and relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bp612TdEK1c

[Asker]

Ewwwww... No way!

[AngryCarl2]

Why doesn't this kind of stuff turn up in my YouTube feed?

[OnTheLevel]

I'm on board! Where's the petition to sign?

[Andres77]

Mas o menos

[Asker]

I don't understand your comment.

[Andres77]

Es porque lo dije en espanol

[Asker]

What?

[Asker]

I only understand English.

[Andres77]

I’m independent. Not libertarian. I don’t want to hurt anyone else but I also don’t like the government controlling everything I do.

[Andres77]

But to run a nation it will take some taxes. I don’t know how to navigate the middle ground