Why there's no libertarian nation on Earth yet

Economics Political Theory
1

Libertarian literature holds that periods of decentralization, weak governments and economic anarchy are responsible for most of the development of western civilization. I think it’s true, but an important question immediately arises – why the islands of liberty have not developed into stable and powerful nations? Without finding and addressing the causes all future attempts are almost certain to follow the path of their predecessors.

One of the common features of traditional state governments is militarism. War is a major tool of advancing government power. How can a libertarian nation compete with its aggressive competitors? I think many of young free nations (e.g. city states) were destroyed by direct or indirect [military] aggression.

By its very nature a libertarian nation cannot desire and persistently seek destruction of another nation (it is not profitable and does not improve quality of life). Ruling elite of a traditional state (on the contrary) by virtue of its destructive ability of imposing their will on their fellow citizens have an a priori advantage in their struggle. They can wage a one-sided offensive for decades. Keeping their people in poverty they can keep attacking their unwitting opponent using all sorts of dirty tricks while the opponent is busy improving quality of life, accumulating wealth etc., too busy to actively defend themselves especially when defending requires attacking and destroying their attacker.

When and if it goes all the way to actual military offensive, again, the virtues of libertarian principles become great disadvantage. It is well known that an army is incomparably stronger than an armed crowd of the same size and with the same weapons. What gives the army great advantage is strict vertical structure, discipline when everybody follows orders of their masters, even if the masters are not exactly bright and not always competent. It makes army a single entity pursuing goals of their master.

The political and military structures that give oppressive states such a great advantage in their war against libertarian nations contradict libertarian principles. It’s difficult to see how they can neutralize those (oppressive states’) advantages without ceasing to be what they are and turning into oppressive states themselves. I think the mutation is what happened many times in history (If memory serves, this scenario happened in medieval Spain).

I think finding a solution for those problems will determine whether and when people will have a chance to live their lives enjoying liberty.

2

What would be the ideological justification the masters would sell to the people for attacking people considered to be of no threat? Unless humanity drops back into the dregs of a bygone era and endorses slavery again, I don’t see what justification the masters could use to move their people to support an attack on libertarian societies.

3

Finding a justification has never been a problem. It has happened before and examples,

although not necessarily concerning libertarian nations (as there’s none), abound

in very recent history.

4

I consider this thesis mostly false.

Perhaps in older times such was the case, but since the industrial revolution it would seem that what really happens is that libertarian nations are in and of themselves destructive. They are ideologically morphed from within, rather than from without. The United States began to change from a widely libertarian country to what it is today all by itself. Indeed far from being the libertarian victim it was the aggressor with the exceptions of the war of 1812 and world war II. Libertarian nations which are large have rarely if ever hesitated to switch towards militarism when necessary. Great Britain, a hub of free trade eventually turned toward socialism and statism, not because of wars but because of its own democratic process, and the gains by the United States government in world war I and II were some of the easiest to mostly role back, it was the grabs made during the preceding two periods, first the progressive era and then the new deal which made permanent steps towards statism.

Also if we look today at the freest nations on earth, which are still the western European nations and the United States, as well as Chile, Hong Kong, and Singapore, then we can see relatively to no force being used to bring them towards a more statist point of view. It is almost all internal. Even Hong Kong is being mostly allowed to flourish by China, which is one of the most anti-libertarian nations on earth.

There are no totally libertarian nations today because of ideological failings of the masses, and of powerful people, as well as of libertarian advocates themselves

5

To some extent, I would say that ‘libertarian nation’ is an incompatiable term. Even if a nation sees the philosophy of libertarianism to be a ‘good goal to strive towards to’, at some point, they have to contradict themselves.

6

Describe what would be a libertarian nation.

7

You are right in your analysis, to a point. This is why freeish places on earth have been confined to special geographical areas, easy to protect: the venetian marsh, the Netherlands well… low lands, the Swiss alps and so on.

But thanks god nukes will soon put an end to conquest forever: now even a single town can defend itself against an empire. A boom is social orders evolution, ultimately leading to an anarchic commonwealth, is to be expected when nukes become generally owned by smaller nations.

8

I never thought of England and the US as libertarian nations. England has always been and still is a state ruled by elite. Was England libertarian in 1300 when William Wallace was fighting against it? Or in 1711 when their government organised South Sea Company? England has always been militaristic and built the biggest empire in recent history. Their rulers were smart enough to grant their subjects certain degree of freedom but it does not make a nation libertarian.

There was a daily article recently on who founded the US (it was on mises daily if memory serves) where it was said that there were 2 opposing groups of settlers. One of them was freedom seekers and the often forgotten one was conservative interventionists, such as religious fundamentalists who were not in peace with the old religious institutions in Europe. The American civil war and the way it was fought indicate to me that US was not a libertarian state at that time already. Up until then (and even further) there was widespread slavery. I do not think slavery is compatible with libertarianism at all.

It is an interesting point anyways and as I said in my first post it needs investigation to understand what makes libertarian nations fade away very quickly. I do not think that the examples of England and US are relevant here, but there might be another cases, I just do not have enough information now. However, I think that fighting and war is what gave birth to oppressive governments and that’s why governments are so commonly pro-war - it’s their holy grail. Centralized oppressive governments can concentrate efforts which is a pillar of military science; and at the same time it’s a curse to general well-being.

9

The U.S. was libertarian? Don’t make me laugh. The bureaucracy simply had not evolved yet.

10

By libertarian nation I mean obviously a nation which follows libertarian principles to a reasonable extent, especially the essential ones - respecting property rights, with no omnipotent government and possibility of its creation ruled out by design. The government would need to be so minimal that it would probably be nothing permanent and institutionalised.
I just managed to find that good article I mentioned, the story of the Spanish Comuneros: http://mises.org/mobile/daily.aspx?Id=5157
here’s what it says in this regard: “… to move forward with “no legal government”…”.
In this particular case the comuneros even had some initial military success, but their opponent was too persistent and eventually the libertarian nation of comuneros turned to the methods of their enemies and disappeared.

11

So, you asking why nirvana doesn’t exist?

12

Yeah that’s also what I meant. There were no libertarian principles in the early colonies. They just hadn’t yet built up the means of pillaging the settlers on a European scale. The “freedom seekers” sought their own freedom.

I recall a Clint Eastwood movie that respresents the traditional American values on respect for others. The “good guys” were goons like Eastwood and their municipal friends trying to steal all of the Mexican homesteads by “misplacing” deeds and creating unfortunate “accidents”.

13

Alright I didn’t understand exactly what you meant by libertarian. Your definition is fairly strict so most of the common examples don’t really work. But anyway first of all your definition would apply to any nation which was non-militaristic or pacificistic anyway regardless of its statist as libertarian or not. Also, I believe that it is much more the case that such nations have just not appeared, rather than that they form and are then crushed.

And the United States was limitedly libertarian leading up to the civil war. How much so is debatable however. For most of the people here I daresay it would not be accepted and also that there have never really been any real libertarian nations in the first. I am immiediatly dubious of your spanish example however, as Spain is very notable for left-wing anarchist movements, that is to say the denial of the individual of his own property.

14

I judge the people, not the circumstance. The early colonies were in a transitory state of affairs. It does not necessarily represent any libertarian sentiment.

15

Vaso,

“…. why the islands of liberty have not developed into stable and powerful nations? Without finding and addressing the causes all future attempts are almost certain to follow the path of their predecessors.”

Assuming that a weak military or strong national government is a prerequisite to defending the borders of a nation is irrelevant; this is especially true in the nuclear age, where small nations can decimate large regional powerhouses. Classical and medieval era city states were small, lacked structured alliances and had limited resources.

“One of the common features of traditional state governments is militarism. War is a major tool of advancing government power. How can a libertarian nation compete with its aggressive competitors? I think many of young free nations (e.g. city states) were destroyed by direct or indirect [military] aggression.”

Libertarianism is inherently opposed to military aggressions; militarism disturbs markets, reduces value for citizens and reduces workforce and wages. Libertarian ideology competes with aggressive nations through diplomacy, trade, alliances, economic prosperity and monetary strength.

“By its very nature a libertarian nation cannot desire and persistently seek destruction of another nation”

Citizen still voice opinions and belligerent nations can still face hardships against libertarian nations that are strong (not in a militaristic sense) through economic, financial or trade pressures. Libertarian nations understand that in periods of warfare quality of life will suffer and that is why direct warfare should be mitigated as much as possible through other means. Nations with nuclear capabilities negates a large portion of the issues.

“It is well known that an army is incomparably stronger than an armed crowd of the same size and with the same weapons. What gives the army great advantage is strict vertical structure, discipline when everybody follows orders of their masters, even if the masters are not exactly bright and not always competent. It makes army a single entity pursuing goals of their master.”

I would argue that in modern warfare, with a wide range of enemy types throughout the globe, a smaller, more adaptable and capable army combined with an economic powerhouse home nation is more efficient for prolonged urban warfare and partner nation enrichment and collaboration groundwork.

I enjoyed your discussions, take care.

Brian Bailey

16

Why is the United States still in Afghanistan?

17

Vaso,

I appreciated your posted question. It is something that I have struggled with as well. It is in my opinion the “chink in the armor” with regards to the practical application of pure Libertarian philosophy. In my mind, no philosophy can be purely implemented because perfect reasoning is not possible. In the case of Libertarianism, the non-aggression principal is the reason why we have not seen a more robust example of a stable, successful Libertarian social enterprise. This is true due the nature of warfare itself.

War can be defined as a violent clash of human wills. In waging war, a society (or some other actor) is attempting to oppose its will on another. This will may be noble, such as in the case of repelling an invader, or it may be evil, such as in the case of almost every initiator of war in all of history. It is important to note, however, that the basis of war is the imposition of human will. Certainly there are means available to us humans short of violence by which we can resolve conflicts. For example, we could simply convince an opponent via reason not to attack, or we could pay him off. There is also the option of capitulation in which case war would not ensue.

But there are foreseeable circumstances where capitulation to the will of an evil aggressor would be untenable and all alternatives to violence expended. In these cases, violence ensues (an opposing view is that of non-violent resistance, which will not be discussed here for brevity). In these cases a society, Libertarian or otherwise, must fight. However, resistance is futile (and therefore immoral) against a well-prepared, evil aggressor unless the Libertarian society is also well-prepared for reasons that you have already outlined (and more). Simply put, if you must fight, you must fight to win.

This is the line of reasoning that supports the claim that nuclear weapons would enable Libertarian (anarchistic?) societies to flourish - something I disagree with. The reasoning goes something like this: Organized application of violence is irrelevant if the opponent can threaten quick annihilation against aggressors via nuclear weapons. One simple, but irrefutable problem with this line of reasoning is the same problem in the employment of any modern weapon – proximity of friendlies. Relying on nukes as the primary mode of defense essentially ensures that it will have to be used in close proximity to your own homeland, greatly reducing their utility. Warfare is a fundamentally human endeavor. No application of technology will ever change that.

It is logical to stipulate that in order to be able to “fight to win,” a society must sufficiently prepare. Sadly, in preparation for war, a society will lose a piece of itself. I wholeheartedly agree that war causes a society to lose freedom and identity to a forceful, centralized state power. In my mind, this is a central dichotomy of human nature itself - in protecting what we hold dear, we lose it. “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.”

In conclusion, the nature of warfare itself ensures that violence will be used in attempts to impose upon another. This world will always feature contests of unequal powers vying for influence. Someone will be the most powerful and they will have their say. Because of this truism, the only conclusion that I have been able to come to is that it is much better for America (be it what it may and conceding nearly every critique voiced on this website) to be on top vice any of the other potential world powers that currently exist. This does not justify the countless offensive actions taken around the world by the U.S. in the name of security. It does justify a credible capability to decisively win any military engagement.

I respectfully await any reaction to this position.

ZS

18

this. When the ideas are right, then they will spread all by themselves, which is basically happening now.

19

Well said. Along these lines, this article seems comforting:
Minority Rules: Why 10 Percent is All You Need

Once 10% of a population is committed to an idea, it’s inevitable that it will eventually become the prevailing opinion of the entire group. The key is to remain committed.

20

Isn’t “libertarian nation” an oxymoronic term?

If people are truly libertarian they don’t want a nation. Right?