What is a Libertarian Paradise?

     In the last few days this tremendous vision is becoming clearer. We are getting a better idea of what it is and what it isn't. The question was actually posed by Mike Kimel over at Angry Bear yesterday.

     http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/11/though-experiment-what-would-perfect.html#more

     It led to an interesting discussion. Then Jazzbumpa mentioned a piece that Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism had posted. It's actually a four part series and if you haven't read it you just have to-it is hilarious and jarring as it really has a lot of truth about what libertarianism is really about. As she shows pretty well, what it isn't is about freedom at least not for those who aren't rich and also the right race, gender, and religion. What it is about, strangely enough, is a worship of insurance companies.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-iii-%e2%80%93-regulation.html

    She has had three parts so far, part 4 is tomorrow. Telling you I am fighting not to burst out laughing as I read it. The format is this interview with some libertarian guy named "Code Name Cain." This name is perfect as it is Herman Cain whose 9-9-9 tax plan and overall attitude on civil rights that is closest to the libertarian vision we see here. The interview is a spoof with this fellow CNC but much of what he says is word for word quotes from none other the conservative economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Now CNC's vision-which is really Hoppe's vision-is that a society with absolutely no government. The idea is that supposedly the private sector can do anything better than the government.

    If on the other hand if certain things that someone-who likely isn't very important in a libertarian society-does desire something that no private company has provided then obviously the market is telling this hapless soul that there is no meaningful demand for it-if there were then the private sector would provide for it. What about stuff like security though? Don't we at least need a public police force and military. Emphatically not for Hoppe. Turns out insurance companies can provide all. These entities are Government Like Organizations (GLOs). The GLOs can provide all the security that anyone can want-provided they have the money for it.

    Will these GLOs be like small family firms? You know we always hear libertarians rhapsodizing "small is beautiful... Turns out though the answer is, "No. One reason that insurance companies will be well-suited for the role of security GLOs is that they are “big” and in command of the resources… necessary to accomplish the task of dealing with the dangers… of the real world. Indeed, insurers operate on a national or even international scale, and they own substantial property holdings dispersed over wide territories… [281]"

     The reason this is red by the way is that CNC has asked that anything directly out of Hoppe's mouth deserves to be in all read.

    Will these GLOs be different because unlike governments they don't use physical force with criminals?

     "You gotta be kidding, right? … in cooperation with one another, insurers [will] want to expel known criminals not just from their immediate neighborhoods, but from civilization altogether, into the wilderness or open frontier of the Amazon jungle, the Sahara, or the polar regions. [262]"

     The quotes are literally from Hoppe's book "Democracy: the God That Failed."

     Reading about Hoppe I did a double take as just yesterday morning before coming across Yves' piece I had read about him for the first time. I was actually reading about George Selgin-I was reading about Selgin because that is where Scott Sumner directed me in answer to a question I asked of him. I know that Sumner gets much of his ideas from Selgin. Selgin himself however runs in similar circles to Hoppe. I can't say that Sumner does agree with Hoppe on much-nor can I say he doesn't. I came across Hoppe where he and Selgin were debating fractional reserve banking. Hoppe says it's the work of the devil as did for example Murray Rothbard. It's funny because the very same morning I came across Hoppe for the first time I had just written a piece about Rothbard and am currently reading his "The Case Against the Fed."

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011/11/reading-murray-rothbard.html

    Rothbard certainly takes a dim view of fractional reserve banking, believing it simple counterfeiting. Speaking of Rothbard though and related matters, it seems that Hoppe really tells it like it is as might be assumed by a book that claims that democracy failed:

    “Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard were great men, but they lived in a time when supporters of freedom needed to be careful about what they said. As a result, libertarians often fail to describe their ideal future society in clear detail. But, as the Cato Institute’s Patri Friedman has recognized, Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an exception to this reticence. He is willing to speak the truth, no matter how much it makes “politically correct” people squirm, and he is so logical and eloquent that I routinely quote from his classic book on the failure of democracy. Please color such quotes in red – I would never try to pass off my own ideas as if they were on his level."

     So these GLCs provide people everything that they need and nothing is lost due to the fact that they demand payment for services rendered. To be sure CNC assures us that in a market economy everyone can receive everything they need by paying the market price. The question though is what about those who can't afford it?

     "Don’t worry, competition among insurers for paying clients will bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection… [281-282]."

     However, " Well, certain government-induced distortions would be eliminated. Government taxes more in low crime and high property value areas than in high crime and low property value areas. [259] Security GLOs would do the exact opposite."

     http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-%e2%80%93the-vision.html

     When understanding what libertarianism is it's also important to get what it isn't. For example, "Left-Libertarians don't get it: " Murray Rothbard likes to call them “modal-libertarians” (MLs). As Rothbard says, “the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him,” who only hates government because it is something else to disrespect. MLs think that profanity, drug use… homosexuality… pedophilia… or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality… are perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles [206]. What these countercultural libertarians fail to realize… is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic rise in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the… life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. [208

    "Left-libertarians and multi- or countercultural lifestyle experimentalists, even if they were not engaged in any crime, would once again have to pay a price for their behavior. If they continued with their behavior or lifestyle [in public], they would be barred from civilized society and live physically separate from it, in ghettos or on the fringes of society, and many positions or professions would be unattainable to them. [212]"

     In other words if "social libertarianism" is a misnomer. As much as people misconstrue this libertarianism properly understood has nothing to do with civil liberties. To the contrary as is clear by Hoppe's words.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-iii-%e2%80%93-regulation.html

   For more on Hoppe also see this link http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe23.1.html

   The title of it is Political Economy of Monarch and Democracy. Not to spoil the ending but democracy loses. Turns out there are two types of government: "private government ownership and public government ownership." The latter is democratic government, the former is monarchy.

   "A private government owner will predictably try to maximize his total wealth, i.e., the present value of his estate and his current income. He will not want to increase his current income at the expense of a more-than-proportional drop in the present value of his assets, and because acts of current-income acquisition invariably have repercussions on present asset values (reflecting the value of all future — expected — asset earnings discounted by the rate of time preference), private ownership in and of itself leads to economic calculation and thus promotes farsightedness."

    Again, the "private government owner" is the King. That he will try to maximize his personal total wealth is a virtue not a vice:

    "In the case of the private ownership of government, this implies a distinct moderation with respect to the ruler's incentive to exploit his monopoly privilege of expropriation, for acts of expropriation are by their nature parasitic upon prior acts of production on the part of the nongovernmental public. Where nothing has first been produced, nothing can be expropriated; and where everything is expropriated, all future production will come to a shrieking halt."

    There you go: Libertarianism-Live Free or Die! All that it takes to get there is to give up any modern idea of civil liberties or civil rights and return to the age of kings.

    In this sense Rothbard has this same interesting idea of freedom. See in Case Against the Fed (pg 57) he tells us that if banking were to return to "relative freedom" the convenience of checking accounts would only be available to the very wealthy. See again, the neat trick where more freedom leads to most people actually having less options. Live Free or Die.