So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Part_Time_Civer]

Oh, well, sure. But that's the same as the democratic process forcing a company to stop polluting. Buncha local decide they want the polluting stopped, and the courts or the law forces them to stop.

Yeah, but instead of mingling in the lives of millions (and creating a large apparatus filled with corruption and waste) 'my' bunch of locals stick with stopping the pollution.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Libertarianism is obsolete when your civ researches Telecommunications.

There are plenty of examples as to why telecomms have turned libertarian societies into oligarchies.
This is the scheme of what is happening:
1. People know and believe what is on the mass media, and therefore mass medias can control the decisional power of a nation (the population).
2. Corporations own mass media, which control the people, which control decisional power = Corporations own the decisional power of a nation.
3. An little oligarchy of corporates control the nation.

That being said, I don't have a solution for this.
Every direction to get out of this would lead to a ton of bad, just like every social revolution.

I understand you point, particularly coming from an Italian. But then again, not all libertarians believe government and laws should be abandoned entirely. I believe government should enforce the constition (maybe an extended version of it), national defense and that's it. And yes, the constitution should contain a chapter about separation of powers, not just executive/legislative/jucidial but also the power of media.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

The problem is even though there are a few good doers (yes, even very rich ones) like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, they are too few and far between. Herbert Hoover advocated a plan similar to yours during the great depression but it didn't do near enough. Even what FDR did wasn't enough, but he made some real effort.

Roman society was built on private charity.

Before you ask, I'm not a marxist, anarchist, or whatever (anymore).

I try not to presume.

 

[warpus]

It's also critical though that the government regulates various industries, especially the banking sector. I don't suppose you'd want to insert a clause into your country's constitution about banking regulations?

 

[Traitorfish]

Certainly. Maybe not in every case. But the whole of the slaver community has an extreme interest in suppressing slave revolts. So they will act together.

I didn't ask about interest, I ask about capability. Certain the entire "slaver community", to the extent that such a thing could be said to exist, had an interest in suppressing slave revolts. But that doesn't imply that they were actually capable of doing so, any more than the fact that the gazelle has an interest in not being eaten by the lion means that it stands as lion-proof.

The planters themselves had no standing army, not even a reliable militia or police force, nor the institutional means to organise such things. They had no effective way of challenging a large-scale slave revolt, only of dealing with individual slaves. All that came from the state. Do you think it plausible that the planters could have developed such institutions, and simply chose not to? And, if is plausible, in what sense does that negate the very real involvement of state and federal governments in upholding slavery in our history?

 

[caketastydelish]

Roman society was built on private charity.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right, but even then Roman society had more than plenty of things I'm not ok with.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I didn't ask about interest, I ask about capability. Certain the entire "slaver community", to the extent that such a thing could be said to exist, had an interest in suppressing slave revolts. But that doesn't imply that they were actually capable of doing so, any more than the fact that the gazelle has an interest in not being eaten by the lion means that it stands as lion-proof.

The planters themselves had no standing army, not even a reliable militia or police force, nor the institutional means to organise such things. They had no effective way of challenging a large-scale slave revolt, only of dealing with individual slaves. All that came from the state. Do you think it plausible that the planters could have developed such institutions, and simply chose not to? And, if is plausible, in what sense does that negate the very real involvement of state and federal governments in upholding slavery in our history?

There is no question of capability in the American South. The Civil War was as deadly and as long as it was for a reason you know.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Civil War was fought between two states, not between a state and a coalition of private entities. If anything, the fact that the slavers felt quite strongly that only unchallenged control over a territorial state could assure the perpetuation of the institution of slavery seems to undermine the claim that slavery was in all essential aspects a private-sector affair.

 

[Hygro]

Do I have to bring the hurt? You're lucky I'm too busy to bring the hurt.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The Civil War was fought between two states, not between a state and a coalition of private entities.

What is a state but a coalition of private entities?

If anything, the fact that the slavers felt quite strongly that only unchallenged control over a territorial state could assure the perpetuation of the institution of slavery seems to undermine the claim that slavery was in all essential aspects a private-sector affair.

So you're saying the slavers created the CSA because they needed control to keep the slaves in check and NOT because the Union was making efforts to end slavery?

 

[Traitorfish]

What is a state but a coalition of private entities?

The state is by definition a non-private entity.

So you're saying the slavers created the CSA because they needed control to keep the slaves in check and NOT because the Union was making efforts to end slavery?

The slavers only resorted to cession when their attempts to perpetuate slavery through the existing governmental apparatus, state and federal, were frustrated. If slavery had been a private affair, they would not have felt the need to do this, because there was no serious drive towards abolition at the federal level until the Civil War already half-over.

 

[Dachs]

The planters themselves had no standing army, not even a reliable militia or police force, nor the institutional means to organise such things. They had no effective way of challenging a large-scale slave revolt, only of dealing with individual slaves. All that came from the state. Do you think it plausible that the planters could have developed such institutions, and simply chose not to? And, if is plausible, in what sense does that negate the very real involvement of state and federal governments in upholding slavery in our history?

Mmmmmh.

During the War of 1812, the United States' military was chiefly comprised of local and state militia organizations. For the assault on Canada, several of these militias - chiefly the New England militias, which were well-equipped but which did not want to fight the war in the first place, and the Indiana militias, which were experienced and did want to fight the indigenous tribes aligned with the British more than they wanted to fight the British themselves - were massed, along with the greater portion of the American federal army.

This left state militias responsible for the defense of the southern states. In the belief that a threat to the nation's capital and the heart of the Democratic-Republican caucus (the southern planters) would induce the Madison administration to pull federal forces away from the invasion of Canada, the British launched a Chesapeake Bay campaign in 1813. They seized control of several islands in the bay and began attacking coastal towns. Sometimes British raids even developed into what would at the time have been called atrocities, such as at Havre de Grace (Maryland) and Newport (Virginia). And, of course, in 1814, the British launched their attack on Washington and Baltimore, with the famous result of a partial victory.

Yet these attacks faced hardly any opposition at all. It wasn't just that the federal government didn't send troops to fight the British. That was a problem, partially because the federal government lacked the logistical capability to transfer troops from the Canadian front, and partially because the Madison administration's priorities were hilariously out of whack. (One might liken the British diplomacy before the war as "talking to a Whoopee cushion"; in that vein, I suppose their military efforts during the war would be like punching a beanbag. Or SpongeBob SquarePants.)

But the real problem was that even the local militia organizations weren't putting up a fight at all. Now, the Maryland and Virginia militias were pretty terrible at that point in time, with virtually zero training and bad equipment. One would still have expected them to contest the British attacks on the Chesapeake area more than they actually did.

So why not? Because these militias were primarily disposed in preventing slaves from leaving local plantations. When the British first arrived in the Chesapeake they were, somewhat to their surprise, suddenly inundated with thousands of escaped slaves. While most officers were unwilling to arm these slaves to augment British military power in the area, they were willing to house, clothe, and feed them, and the British would eventually ship most of them to new homes in Canada and the Isles. The local planters, of course, saw the specter of loss of control, economic collapse, and social revolution rearing its head, so they deployed the militias in places that they thought were truly important.

All of this is aimed at arguing that yes, the planters had a militia system - albeit not an incredibly effective one - and yes, they did attempt to use it to sustain their slave system in certain extremities when federal power was not so readily available.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I'm not contesting that militia systems existed. But those militia systems did not exist outside of the state, as the armed wings of private or civil organisations. As you yourself note, they were state militias, and while, granted, their organisation was still a very local business, they were still formally and organisationally dependent on a central government, or at the very least on the fact of a central government existing. Would either the state or federal governments have tolerated a truly extra-statial militia operating in their territory? (I mean, one that wasn't comprised of Canuck-bothering Irishmen, at any rate.) Especially given the plentiful examples supplied by the Latin American republics of how quickly a planter-class backed by private armies turns everything to crap.


I mean, I should make it clear, I fully acknowledge that the state was the leading force in the abolition of Atlantic slavery. No question. Those exceptions which exist, like Haiti, are notable precisely because they are exceptional. But that doesn't imply that slavery itself existed in some essential way beyond the state, any more than any other form of property does, which is what Cutlass seemingly wants to argue.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The state is by definition a non-private entity.

Which is crafted from...?

The slavers only resorted to cession when their attempts to perpetuate slavery through the existing governmental apparatus, state and federal, were frustrated. If slavery had been a private affair, they would not have felt the need to do this, because there was no serious drive towards abolition at the federal level until the Civil War already half-over.

Tell me, what the did the government do for the South that had a substantial impact on perpetuating slavery? What was the South trying to get the government to do before the Civil War broke out?

EDIT: For that matter, what did the government of the South do that had any substantial effect on slavery in the South? (Other than it ending)

 

[caketastydelish]

The slavers only resorted to cession when their attempts to perpetuate slavery through the existing governmental apparatus, state and federal, were frustrated.

The best part about it is (in my opinion) that the north was not even going to end slavery in where it already existed anyway, they just wanted to make sure it did not spread to new US territory.

So even in a world where preserving slavery is morally acceptable, the CSA still didn't have a point.

On top of that, they started the war by attacking a union fort, then later in the war attacked the north on their own turf, and had a well known plan to capture Washington D.C.

But on the hand, the CSA has many defenders, even some on this very forum, who insist they were 'fighting for their freedom and way of life.'

 

[Traitorfish]

Which is crafted from...?

Smaller non-private entities.

I don't know where you're going with this, because there's really no point about which the US government or any of the state governments can shown to be comprised of private entities. Even the citizenry are in their capacity as a citizenry are a public rather than private body.

Tell me, what the did the government do for the South that had a substantial impact on perpetuating slavery? What was the South trying to get the government to do before the Civil War broke out?

EDIT: For that matter, what did the government of the South do that had any substantial effect on slavery in the South? (Other than it ending)

Well, firstly, you've got the ways in which the state perpetuates all forms of property: by regulating ownership and trade, by mediating in disputes, by preventing theft and punishing thieves ("theft" here describing extra-legal emancipation), and the punishment of those who transgress against property. It's hard to imagine that this could be effectively be carried out by private actors in a society like the antebellum South, where you lacked the relations of kinship, fealty and/or mutual aid on which stateless systems of property tend to depend.

With slavery, you also have some significant activity at a federal level, including: the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dredd Scot decision of 1857 which between them effectively overturned abolition in the free states (so much of "state's rights", huh?), the prosecution of the Mexican-American War and annexation of California and Texas, which opened up huge tracts of the West to prospective plantation, and participation in the maintenance of the trans-Atlantic trade which made Southern slavery and above all slave cotton viable.

To put it glibly, John Brown didn't hang himself.

 

[Ajidica]

Roman society was built on private charity.

Not really. The Roman government spent massive amounts of money in Rome itself giving away free bread and I believe wine to the plebs to keep them happy/benefit of happening to live in Roman.
The Roman government also embarked on what we today would call public works projects with the aqueducts and roads. While some I believe were built by slave labor, a significant amount of the roads were build by the soldiers. (In large part to keep them employed and out of trouble. When the later Roman Empire lacked the funds to do such actions they were forced to settle troops down who often were perfectly happy to join up with rebels for steady pay.)

That said, Roman society is not a desirable target of emulation today and trying to draw any meaningful parallels between it and modern society is about as silly as pretending pre-modern societies had what we would consider Nationalism.

 

[Tahuti]

The state is by definition a non-private entity.

Do you consider feudal fiefdoms and explicitly personalistic monarchies to be states? For instance, it seems Machiavelli believes states necessarily have a republican element to them, which the aforementioned types of government do not have.

 

[Dachs]

Well, I'm not contesting that militia systems existed. But those militia systems did not exist outside of the state, as the armed wings of private or civil organisations. As you yourself note, they were state militias, and while, granted, their organisation was still a very local business, they were still formally and organisationally dependent on a central government, or at the very least on the fact of a central government existing. Would either the state or federal governments have tolerated a truly extra-statial militia operating in their territory? (I mean, one that wasn't comprised of Canuck-bothering Irishmen, at any rate.) Especially given the plentiful examples supplied by the Latin American republics of how quickly a planter-class backed by private armies turns everything to crap.


I mean, I should make it clear, I fully acknowledge that the state was the leading force in the abolition of Atlantic slavery. No question. Those exceptions which exist, like Haiti, are notable precisely because they are exceptional. But that doesn't imply that slavery itself existed in some essential way beyond the state, any more than any other form of property does, which is what Cutlass seemingly wants to argue.

What about slavery in societies where the state functionally does not exist, such as early medieval Europe?

Do you consider feudal fiefdoms and explicitly personalistic monarchies to be states? For instance, it seems Machiavelli believes states necessarily have a republican element to them, which the aforementioned types of government do not have.

My favorite definition of the state is Chris Wickham's, namely an organization that:

1. Centralizes the possession of legitimate enforceable authority
2. Specializes governmental roles with an official hierarchy, which outlasted the people who held official position at any one time
3. Propounds the concept of public power
4. Sets aside independent and stable resources for rulers, and
5. Relies on a class-based system of surplus extraction and stratification.

 

[Mise]

What does he mean by public power?