Libertarian Atheists

[blackpudd1n]

pudd1n,

 

Seriously, read into the Zero Aggression Principle. Then from that foundation grow your thoughts and actions from there. There is no one particular *exact* definition of what an *XXXXX* is.

 

Casey and I have spent many hours over the proceeding years exchanging ideas and descriptions of our various Countries politics and ways, and I'm STILL not sure my weak understanding of Aus' systems is much fuller. In our chats I have enjoyed comparing and and listening to his views. Been great for me.

 

I don't know that I would like the goobers in the Aus Goobermint any more than I like those in mine. However, the differences in populations of city and rural areas is very similar in both Countries, population centers always outweighing in funding and vote count.

 

As far as being libertarian, there is a difference. What we who are, or practice being, refer to "Party People" as big L libertarians, those interested in taking part in the existing system, trying to make what are important changes in the broad spectrum of American Politics.

 

THEN there are those like myself who could give a phuk less about big L, eschew the deep political involvement and tend to do the individual things, doing what c an be done for those who need it. Again, trying to define libertarian is tough, even ramen's formidable charting in his above post.

I'll keep my nose outa your life, not screw you over, trade fairly, and try to extend courtesy in things that my House does. Mutalism, Agorism, assorted thoughts are works of persons trying to do the different than the course of "politics"...

 

"If voting changed anything, it would be unlawful!"

 

kL

 

Well, we do have a different system over here... for now. One of the state's police commissioners has expressed concern regarding some laws that the government is trying to introduce, where they would store all emails, text, and phone calls for two years and the police would not require a search warrant to access that information. Even the police commissioner of one state feels that that is going too far, and doesn't like the sound of it. That is where I think politicians are over-stepping the mark. That being said, though, even if the laws pass, it won't be long before they are declared unconsitutional.

 

I will have to read further into the "Zero Aggression Principle", but it sounds very similar to the Wiccan Creed- "And it harm none, do what you want". The emphasis is on not harming another with your actions. However, the ZAG appears more to be about the independence and right to solidarity of the individual. And if I'm right about that, then I do agree with that- up until a point, the point being where the individual's actions do not negatively impact upon another person. When a person's actions clearly negatively impact upon another individual, then that is when I agree that restrictions should be put on their movements. I think we tend to imprison people in jails for our own purposes, revenge, more than anything else. But I don't see why we should go to quite such lengths- I think the majority of offenders could just as easily be punished by a nice electric fence being built around their property, and maybe being guarded in turns by members of their own community. I don't know, I haven't fully thought through that one. I just don't think the prison system is really the best system.

 

I will have to read more into it at a later stage. For the most part, though, I consider myself independent, and when it comes to politics, I am a proud swing voter. No party should ever be able to count on anyone's vote for anything.

[blackpudd1n]

What is this kind of system called? I agree 100% with the statements above. Is it just a mix of Libertarian and Liberal views?

 

Just some of my own personal views. I'm not sure where it puts me exactly, to be honest. I spent my teen years in a town with an Independent for representation in parliament, and that town is still staunchly independent, ten years after I left. I can't deny that that has had a big impact on my political views. I would love to see more independents be elected; we had three or four elected nation-wide in the last election, which was something of a record. As far as I am concerned, the local representative is there to serve their local community, NOT the interests of a party. Where I spent my teen years was a regional centre five hours from Sydney, and going Independent has worked well for it.

 

Economically, I am not a socialist, and I view a socialist set-up to be inefficient and in no-one's favour, apart from those at the top, which really defeats the whole purpose. Socialism rewards the lazy and penalises the hard-working, to the point where there is no incentive for hard work or improvement, depressing the society as a whole. That being said, I am not a strict economic rationalist, either. For the most part, the market works well. However, some industries do require regulation, simply due to human nature. The industries I'm talking about are mainly banking/finance and all forms of food production. I don't suggest archaic regulations; perhaps standards would be a better word. For the ethical farmer, standards are not going to be a problem. For the unethical farmer, standards will save everyone else. As for banking/finance... Well, I don't think I really need to go into much detail there as to why that industry needs an independent body, separate from the government, keeping a close eye on it. Education is another one, considering all the hassles the US is having with intelligent Design and the fight to keep it out of the classrooms alone.

 

In a way, I guess I hesitate to label myself with any particular political ideology. I may have left that town of my teens 10 years ago, but I think at heart I will always be staunchly Independent, myself. Independent to the core, and not a vote to be relied upon.

[blackpudd1n]

Oh, by the way, Kevin, I just wanted to add that I will do some more reading on the subject at a later date. Sorry I didn't include that in my post, dad turned up with some groceries and cups of tea had to be organised

[BMandeville]

I support government action only against such acts that are injurious to others. That does not mean, however, that government inaction is by definition preferable, laudable, or advantageous. There can be no established minimum standard of public regulation because there is no maximum potential for damage caused by private activity.

 

The reason I do not support anarcho-capitalism is due to the fact that in a truly free market, people are allowed to make a profit by any means necessary. Most libertarians will respond by saying that's why we have laws, and I agree. However, if a truly free market is followed through to its logical end, the result is a type of private feudalism, an impotent government incapable of upholding the rights of citizens, and a disproportionate amount of power awarded to entities that are not publicly accountable. You can vote out a group of politicians; the same cannot be said of a board of directors (unless you're a shareholder).

 

Abolishing regulation effectively allows the socialization of the risk of doing business amongst an unwilling society. When a coal plant is constructed in my town and pollutes the air, they are forcing me to share in the cost of doing business. Instead of redistribution of wealth (which I am against), we are left with redistribution of cost. I find both to be unethical and equally reprehensible forms of coercive collectivism.

 

Even Hayek conceded that there are problems that cannot be solved by the market, like social issues. I'm not saying government action is wonderful, but it is a reality. The fact that it carries the potential for abuse is simply not a good reason to run pell-mell in the other direction, any more than the potential for abusive corporate practices is a reason to exercise undue and unjust government control. Every society complains about too much government interference, and ours is no different. It's a healthy battle to have, but it's not like this is anything new or surprising. The first English census was widely decried as "an eradication of the last bastion of British liberty," so in a broad sense, I'm a little unmoved by contemporary libertarian hyperbole. Let's be honest; a lot of it is just political fashion and emotional appeal.

 

I have to admit a bit of annoyance towards outspoken libertarians who took advantage of government loans to get through school, rely on their parents for auto or health insurance, had their educations paid for by family, or drive the car their parents bought them as teenagers. I do not know a single one who doesn't meet at least one of these descriptions (I'm now waiting on the inevitable barrage of stories describing the self-made nature of libertarians).

 

Aside from all that, I have no problems with libertarians in general and encourage them to live by example. If they don't want to pay fuel taxes, fine; I believe they should be free to buy land and construct their own roads to get to the places they need to go. If they don't want to pay property taxes, that's fine too; they should be free to acquire accreditation and instruct their children as they see fit. If they don't want to pay income taxes, that again is fine; they should be free to hire their own security, police, firefighters, emergency response, disaster aid, and unemployment insurance. I would be ecstatic if everyone could do that. Objectively, I know it's not possible, but that shouldn't stop people from trying, and as I said before, it's a healthy societal debate to have.

 

 

I'm not a statist. I don't think Obama is awesome. I don't hate any type of political affiliation. I just prefer to be pragmatic as opposed to idealistic. I agree with the libertarians on here more than I let on, but for me to state why would border on redundancy; I'm simply offering an alternative viewpoint.

[RankStranger]

 

<snipped>

 

 

Plus one on all that.

 

I often agree with Libertarians' stated positions, though I can't really get on board with the Ayn Rand style wealth-worship. I mainly have a problem with how their ideas are put into practice.

 

Those Libertarian ideas that will benefit billionaires- they manage to work their way into both major parties, and get passed into law. But Libertarian ideas that could possibly benefit ME? Hell no... it'll never happen.

[Ouroboros]

<snipped>

 

 

Plus one on all that.

 

I often agree with Libertarians' stated positions, though I can't really get on board with the Ayn Rand style wealth-worship. I mainly have a problem with how their ideas are put into practice.

 

Those Libertarian ideas that will benefit billionaires- they manage to work their way into both major parties, and get passed into law. But Libertarian ideas that could possibly benefit ME? Hell no... it'll never happen.

Perhaps it's because people think of different kinds of liberties.

 

Rich people's Libertarian view: freedom from tax.

 

Poor people's Libertarian view: freedom from oppression.

 

Something like that.

[blackpudd1n]

I've spent the last 24 hours wracking my brain over this thread. Something I remembered my Economics teacher talking about back in high school. And I've finally found it: An Aussie dude doing the Libertarian thing since 1970 In the link below is the story of the Principality of Hutt River. Basically, this dude managed to form a sovereign state within Australia. And because the government didn't take very seriously his claim for secession, and failed to respond during the two years it was able to under the Australian Constitution, by default his secession was successful. The principality even has its own currency and stamps. While the Australian government does not officially recognise the Principality, the secession has never been formally disputed, and as a result, all income earned within the Principality is not taxed by the Australian Tax Office.

 

It's a fascinating story, it really is. You can read all of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

[♦ nivek ♦]

Cool link and write up pudd1n, reading it this evening. I tend to look deeper into subject as more info of any sort is found. This is one such, appreciated!

 

kL

[blackpudd1n]

Cool link and write up pudd1n, reading it this evening. I tend to look deeper into subject as more info of any sort is found. This is one such, appreciated!

 

kL

 

You're more than welcome, Nivek I thought you would be interested in Prince Leonard's story He had to declare himself a monarch in order to protect the principality (I think he turned to International Law here); however, as Australia is still a monarchy under England, by declaring loyalty to Queen Elizabeth, and taking the title of "prince" instead of "king" or "queen", he fucked that avenue up for the government to dismantle the principality. They just didn't take him seriously when they could have, and now, they won't challenge the secession simply because they fear the ramifications of doing so. It could lead to all sorts of precedents. Basically, they thought he was just some stupid farmer, and he made them a laughing stock lol. But he's the one laughing now. He gets like 40,000 tourists a year to support his economy, and his coins and stamps are sold all over the world. I think he's a bit of a legend, myself- it all started because the government was imposing tariffs on him.

 

Edit to add: You might also be interested in this, the official website of the Principality http://www.principal...hutt-river.com/

 

Edit again: Found a newer website: http://www.hutt-river.org/

[ShackledNoMore]

Sorry to jump into the party late, but this has not been said at all, and I think it addresses the OP.

 

The Libertarian Party, in practice, is not what it started out to be, or what it is in theory. I remember in the 1970's hearing libertarians being described by some in the mainstream something like this: "they're the whackos who think that government should almost completely go away, taxes should be abolished and spending should almost disappear, and anything should be completely legal, even drugs." Even today if you read the Libertarian Party Platform, the emphasis on individual freedoms is explicit and strong.

 

The reality is, libertarians are by no means a monolithic group, and in practice it can mean many things to be a libertarian. And guess what? The majority of libertarians have either sprung from or been influenced by the conservative movement in the United States, which has in practice has shifted the emphasis from individual freedoms to corporate freedoms, weakening the emphasis on individual liberties, and weakened the element of fiscal conservatism when it comes to military spending.

 

I don't know whether the following observations have anything to do with Reasonable Doubt's or Non Prophets' opposition to libertarianism, but enough of the libertarian movement to have a voice has slipped in some pretty unpalatable ideas for most of us who don't believe there is a god who has certain pet peeves about certain behaviors which do not otherwise hurt others. This would be the Denial-ican or the Bizarrely Hypocritical from Ramen's Post #18. (Government should stay out of our personal lives! Except for women's uteruses, where government belongs!)

 

While non-believers are not a monolithic group either, many of us are left-leaning with respect to the amount of assistance that should be provided to the jobless, the homeless, the sick, etc. Providing health care, housing, or financial assistance has never been a function of government under the libertarian mindset, and this is another thing that might be unpalatable to those who feel we have a social/humanitarian responsibility to help out those in need in this way.

[BMandeville]

The majority of libertarians have either sprung from or been influenced by the conservative movement in the United States, which has in practice has shifted the emphasis from individual freedoms to corporate freedoms, weakening the emphasis on individual liberties, and weakened the element of fiscal conservatism when it comes to military spending.

 

Exactly. While individual freedom is appealing to people of all walks of life and political views, libertarianism has been largely hijacked by corporate interests and is mostly a thinly-veiled attempt to empower corporations under the guise of populism, which is contradictory and absurd. It relies on semantics, oversimplification, and accusatory false dichotomies ("Oh, you support reasonable regulation? You must be against liberty!") to intellectually bully the reasonable skeptics, and modern libertarianism appeals mostly to people who think only in terms of black and white.

 

The Libertarian Party, in practice, is not what it started out to be, or what it is in theory.

 

Well-put.

[Ro-bear]

In my estimation, ALL taxes should be voluntary...specifically, a user fee type system such as sales tax, excise tax, and tariffs....and direct fee for service. Those are all entered into by the uncoerced choice of the person partaking of the service or buying of goods. Nobody is forcing anybody to do what they object to. There is a fair exchange. Thus it is fair and equitable.

 

Nonsense. It would still be involuntary. Businesses would not collect the tax unless the government made them, because it costs them sales and does nothing for them.

[BMandeville]

The thing that I despise about income and property tax is that it is government force against the citizens. If you refuse to pay them, they can come and put you in jail or prison. That is legalized extortion at the barrel of a gun.

 

No kidding. If we play on semantics like that, laws are forced behaviors at gunpoint. That's just a little too ridiculous for me to take seriously.

 

In my estimation, ALL taxes should be voluntary...specifically, a user fee type system such as sales tax, excise tax, and tariffs....and direct fee for service. Those are all entered into by the uncoerced choice of the person partaking of the service or buying of goods. Nobody is forcing anybody to do what they object to. There is a fair exchange. Thus it is fair and equitable.

 

Sure, and adherence to laws should be voluntary, with failure to do so carrying no penal measures whatsoever. At that point, they're no longer laws, so what's to stop anyone from coming to your house and taking your property? You might have a gun, but what if they outnumber you and have bigger guns and more ammo?

 

In order to combat that hypothetical situation, you'd need people with whom you were in agreement to follow certain rules and obligations, even at the expense of your/their own desires. Kind of like a collective. Or a society.

 

From what I understand, some (but not all) libertarians want all the benefits of civilized society without any of the responsibility. That's freeloading. A society is like a family: sometimes you have to do things you'd rather not. It's part of being an adult.

[BMandeville]

It's a fascinating story, it really is. You can read all of it here: http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Hutt_River

 

I checked this out, and it was very interesting. I had never heard of this particular case before, but I had read of a few others. Personally, this Capley (I think that was his name) fellow was in the right to oppose quota limits set down by the government, but Wikipedia didn't go into much detail on it, and I don't know that secession was really the best way to go. From what I understand, the Australian government played it right by knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, so to speak. Having your own country landlocked within a country that outnumbers your own population, military, and resources is, in my opinion, profoundly stupid and he is nothing more than a charity case dependent on the good graces and PR wishes of the legitimate government of Australia. It's heartwarming, I suppose, but idiotic nonetheless.

 

There's another case of a wealthy man commandeering a British naval outpost in the English channel post-WWII and declaring it a sovereign nation. True to form, the Brits sent the Navy after him (it was, after all, their property). I guess Australians are a bit more laid back. With the Hutt River Principality, I think they made the right call. Why make a martyr and a hero out of a disgruntled farmer?

 

If my memory serves me correctly, I think I remember reading that Capley wanted the Australian postal service to still deliver to his residence, which is having one's cake and eating it too, and I thought that was mildly annoying.

 

Nobody takes him seriously and citizens from other nations only seek to use his unique status for their own gain. What a statement he made. I support his right to do what he wants, but I'm almost embarrassed for the guy. He is nothing more than a charity case and exists only as long as he is useful to or ideologically consistent with people who don't care a whit for his nation.

 

His titles are the mark of an egomaniac.

[blackpudd1n]

It's a fascinating story, it really is. You can read all of it here: http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Hutt_River

 

I checked this out, and it was very interesting. I had never heard of this particular case before, but I had read of a few others. Personally, this Capley (I think that was his name) fellow was in the right to oppose quota limits set down by the government, but Wikipedia didn't go into much detail on it, and I don't know that secession was really the best way to go. From what I understand, the Australian government played it right by knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, so to speak. Having your own country landlocked within a country that outnumbers your own population, military, and resources is, in my opinion, profoundly stupid and he is nothing more than a charity case dependent on the good graces and PR wishes of the legitimate government of Australia. It's heartwarming, I suppose, but idiotic nonetheless.

 

There's another case of a wealthy man commandeering a British naval outpost in the English channel post-WWII and declaring it a sovereign nation. True to form, the Brits sent the Navy after him (it was, after all, their property). I guess Australians are a bit more laid back. With the Hutt River Principality, I think they made the right call. Why make a martyr and a hero out of a disgruntled farmer?

 

If my memory serves me correctly, I think I remember reading that Capley wanted the Australian postal service to still deliver to his residence, which is having one's cake and eating it too, and I thought that was mildly annoying.

 

Nobody takes him seriously and citizens from other nations only seek to use his unique status for their own gain. What a statement he made. I support his right to do what he wants, but I'm almost embarrassed for the guy. He is nothing more than a charity case and exists only as long as he is useful to or ideologically consistent with people who don't care a whit for his nation.

 

His titles are the mark of an egomaniac.

 

Australia was a very different place back then. Not only was it highly beaurecratic, but was in the last stages of dismantling a delightful little immigration policy called the "White Australia" policy. That's right, we didn't let people of many ethnic backgrounds immigrate here for many decades. (White Australia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy )

 

The argument started over enforced wheat tariffs, and I'm going to PM Casey on this one to come and explain them fully. Casey would do a better job of it than I could, as a man of the land and also Australian history buff. I do know that the tariffs were over-bearing.

 

However, you should read the following section from the Wiki page again while I get Casey in. It's 5pm now, so hopefully he'll be able to add some input in a couple of hours. But anyway, from the article:

 

The Principality of Hutt River was declared an independent province in 1970 by Leonard Casley, in response to a dispute with the government of Western Australia over what the Casley family considered draconian wheat production quotas. The Casley farm had around 4,000 hectares (9,900 acres) of wheat ready to harvest when the quotas were issued, which allowed Casley to sell only 1,647 bushels or approximately 40 hectares (99 acres). Initially, the five families who owned farms at Hutt River banded together to fight the quota, and Casley lodged a protest with the Governor of Western Australia, Sir Douglas Kendrew. The Governor replied "no rectification of our Quota would be allowed". Casley reasoned that as the Governor acts as the Queen's representative, this made Her Majesty liable, in tort, for applying an unlawful imposition as the quota had not yet been passed into law. Casley lodged a claim under the Law of Tort for A$52 million in the belief the claim would force a revision of the quota. Two weeks later, the government introduced a bill into Parliament to "resume" their lands under compulsory acquisition. After approaches to the government to reconsider the acquisition bill failed, Casley and his associates resorted to International Law, which they felt allowed them to secede and declare their independence from the Commonwealth of Australia. Casley has claimed he nonetheless remains loyal to Queen Elizabeth II.^[3][1] He was elected administrator of the new "sovereign state" by his family.^{[citation needed]}

The government of Western Australia determined it could do nothing without the intervention of the Commonwealth. The Governor-General of Australia, Sir Paul Hasluck, later stated that it was unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to intervene in the secession.^[3] In correspondence with the governor-general's office, Casley was inadvertently addressed as the "Administrator of the Hutt River Province" which was claimed (via Royal Prerogative as the Queen's representative) to be a legally binding recognition.^[3] After prime minister William McMahon threatened him with prosecution, Casley styled himself His Majesty Prince Leonard I of Hutt to take advantage of the British Treason Act 1495; that a self proclaimed monarch could not only not be guilty of any offence against the rightful ruler, but that anyone who interfered with his duties could be charged with treason

 

It also explains why he took the title he did.

 

The quotas hadn't been passed into law, yet they were being enforced. When he disputed them, he was hoping only to have them revised, but the government turned around and were going to TAKE his land from him. Usually when the government took your land, you received a pittence for it. You did not even receive its proper worth.

 

Anyway, I'm going to get Casey in now. But personally, I think the man's a bit of a legend, and something of a larrikin, too.

[BMandeville]

It's a fascinating story, it really is. You can read all of it here: http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Hutt_River

 

I checked this out, and it was very interesting. I had never heard of this particular case before, but I had read of a few others. Personally, this Capley (I think that was his name) fellow was in the right to oppose quota limits set down by the government, but Wikipedia didn't go into much detail on it, and I don't know that secession was really the best way to go. From what I understand, the Australian government played it right by knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, so to speak. Having your own country landlocked within a country that outnumbers your own population, military, and resources is, in my opinion, profoundly stupid and he is nothing more than a charity case dependent on the good graces and PR wishes of the legitimate government of Australia. It's heartwarming, I suppose, but idiotic nonetheless.

 

There's another case of a wealthy man commandeering a British naval outpost in the English channel post-WWII and declaring it a sovereign nation. True to form, the Brits sent the Navy after him (it was, after all, their property). I guess Australians are a bit more laid back. With the Hutt River Principality, I think they made the right call. Why make a martyr and a hero out of a disgruntled farmer?

 

If my memory serves me correctly, I think I remember reading that Capley wanted the Australian postal service to still deliver to his residence, which is having one's cake and eating it too, and I thought that was mildly annoying.

 

Nobody takes him seriously and citizens from other nations only seek to use his unique status for their own gain. What a statement he made. I support his right to do what he wants, but I'm almost embarrassed for the guy. He is nothing more than a charity case and exists only as long as he is useful to or ideologically consistent with people who don't care a whit for his nation.

 

His titles are the mark of an egomaniac.

 

Australia was a very different place back then. Not only was it highly beaurecratic, but was in the last stages of dismantling a delightful little immigration policy called the "White Australia" policy. That's right, we didn't let people of many ethnic backgrounds immigrate here for many decades. (White Australia policy: http://en.wikipedia....ustralia_policy )

 

The argument started over enforced wheat tariffs, and I'm going to PM Casey on this one to come and explain them fully. Casey would do a better job of it than I could, as a man of the land and also Australian history buff. I do know that the tariffs were over-bearing.

 

However, you should read the following section from the Wiki page again while I get Casey in. It's 5pm now, so hopefully he'll be able to add some input in a couple of hours. But anyway, from the article:

 

The Principality of Hutt River was declared an independent province in 1970 by Leonard Casley, in response to a dispute with the government of Western Australia over what the Casley family considered draconian wheat production quotas. The Casley farm had around 4,000 hectares (9,900 acres) of wheat ready to harvest when the quotas were issued, which allowed Casley to sell only 1,647 bushels or approximately 40 hectares (99 acres). Initially, the five families who owned farms at Hutt River banded together to fight the quota, and Casley lodged a protest with the Governor of Western Australia, Sir Douglas Kendrew. The Governor replied "no rectification of our Quota would be allowed". Casley reasoned that as the Governor acts as the Queen's representative, this made Her Majesty liable, in tort, for applying an unlawful imposition as the quota had not yet been passed into law. Casley lodged a claim under the Law of Tort for A$52 million in the belief the claim would force a revision of the quota. Two weeks later, the government introduced a bill into Parliament to "resume" their lands under compulsory acquisition. After approaches to the government to reconsider the acquisition bill failed, Casley and his associates resorted to International Law, which they felt allowed them to secede and declare their independence from the Commonwealth of Australia. Casley has claimed he nonetheless remains loyal to Queen Elizabeth II.^[3][1] He was elected administrator of the new "sovereign state" by his family.^{[citation needed]}

The government of Western Australia determined it could do nothing without the intervention of the Commonwealth. The Governor-General of Australia, Sir Paul Hasluck, later stated that it was unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to intervene in the secession.^[3] In correspondence with the governor-general's office, Casley was inadvertently addressed as the "Administrator of the Hutt River Province" which was claimed (via Royal Prerogative as the Queen's representative) to be a legally binding recognition.^[3] After prime minister William McMahon threatened him with prosecution, Casley styled himself His Majesty Prince Leonard I of Hutt to take advantage of the British Treason Act 1495; that a self proclaimed monarch could not only not be guilty of any offence against the rightful ruler, but that anyone who interfered with his duties could be charged with treason

 

It also explains why he took the title he did.

 

The quotas hadn't been passed into law, yet they were being enforced. When he disputed them, he was hoping only to have them revised, but the government turned around and were going to TAKE his land from him. Usually when the government took your land, you received a pittence for it. You did not even receive its proper worth.

 

Anyway, I'm going to get Casey in now. But personally, I think the man's a bit of a legend, and something of a larrikin, too.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I've been at work for the past few weeks and can only do this sort of thing in passing, so I figured I'd missed a few key points here and there.

 

I don't doubt he's a legend, but that's not necessarily synonymous with "heroic." I do agree that the quotas imposed by the government were unjust and unfairly jeopardized his livelihood, but like I said before, I don't understand how secession is supposed to be a practical solution. I see his actions as emotional and symbolic rather than pragmatic, but I don't live in Australia, and will take you at your word on the matter.

[blackpudd1n]

Thanks for the clarification. I've been at work for the past few weeks and can only do this sort of thing in passing, so I figured I'd missed a few key points here and there.

 

I don't doubt he's a legend, but that's not necessarily synonymous with "heroic." I do agree that the quotas imposed by the government were unjust and unfairly jeopardized his livelihood, but like I said before, I don't understand how secession is supposed to be a practical solution. I see his actions as emotional and symbolic rather than pragmatic, but I don't live in Australia, and will take you at your word on the matter.

 

Also, libertarians, I'm a little more sympathetic to your position, as of last night: my bus was raided by cops and it was a thoroughly unpleasant experience, although I didn't go to jail. A run-in with the law for something that should be legal always drives the point of civil liberties home in a very real way.

 

No problem. Suceeding worked for him, because he never had to fill another quota again. And love him or hate him, he averages like 40,000 tourists annually. That's impressive, considering that Western Australia's main industries are farming and mining. And by seceeding, he managed to keep his land. The guy was a farmer. Not only was his land his livelihood, but Aussie farmers have a deep emotional connection to their land. The suicide rate for Aussie farmers is terrible, and the prospect of losing their land is a huge factor in many of them. Aussie farmers are also very, very, very proud. Casley only seceeded when the government moved to take his land.

 

As far as I am concerned, good on him. He kept his land, and very successfully turned it into a tourist destination. If the secession is ever sorted out officially, the principality would probably remain, as a site of historical significance.

[Casey]

My apologies Pud, I got your message all right but was a little tired yesterday evening. My parents weren't into grain farming at the time mentioned, they were into livestock, that's sheep and cattle. That had its own bureaucracy, still does. However I was talking to a fellow I know today who remembers those times and whose family was always into grain farming.

 

Yes, they had quotas imposed by the Australian Wheat Board, but, at least over here, these quotas had more to do with storage than with price control. Suppose the local AWB had storage room for 50,000 tonnes in their silos yet there was a bumper harvest of twice that amount. They'd impose storage quotas based on how long you'd been a wheat farmer, how good your wheat was and so forth. And perhaps, on how funny your handshake was. Or so some said.

 

According to what I was told, the quota only applied to how much bulk wheat you delivered to the depot. If you exceeded your quota you'd have to bag the rest of your wheat before the wheat board would take it. Then of course you'd have to employ lumpers to put the wheat into bags and sew the bags. I don't know how this affected prices but since legally you could only sell your wheat through the AWB I imagine all the evils existed which seem to go along with similar monopolies.

 

Quotas, so I was told, weren't imposed if there was sufficient silo space for the harvested grain. Nowadays the old Wheat Board has been taken over by Grainco which is a private company and they have two depots, one on the Western side of town, the other on the Eastern side, and both with the railway line running through them. There are no quotas any more and you can sell to whom you like.

 

I think the Commonwealth decided wisely enough not to make a martyr out of Casley. However, had the entire State of Western Australia decided to secede, well, your guess is as good as mine. I know when Joh Bjelke Petersen was Premier of Queensland (that's back when the State was called The Deep North) the thought allegedly did occur to the mad old git. Nothing came of it, he was all blow.

 

Casey

[darwinfish]

It's a fascinating story, it really is. You can read all of it here: http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Hutt_River

 

Thanks, for posting that, that's really interesting. I often thought that someone should test different economic political systems. Something on the line of setting up a system, asking for volunteers to live in these communities of a set period of years, then comparing the different communities to see which ones seemed to be the most successful. Such communities would have to be autonomous from the surrounding government. And, I'm not sure how'd you'd handle a crime. There'd have to be rules set in place for when the surrounding government might need to step in. For me there so many arguments that end with, "Well you don't know what a true communist society is because we've never seen one successfully set up." I feel we need more experimental data. Wouldn't it be so much better if we knew one system actually did work better than another?

[BMandeville]

I feel we need more experimental data. Wouldn't it be so much better if we knew one system actually did work better than another?

 

The reason we don't regularly perform such experiments is because it would a.) subvert the democratic process, and b.) require people to serve as test subjects without their consent, affecting nearly every aspect of their daily lives.

 

I mean, how would you feel if I assumed total control and said, "All right guys, we're going to try a dictatorship for a while, just to cover all the bases and get a bit of data."

 

Relegating human beings to the status of lab rats isn't the nicest thing I can think of.

 

That's why when Randians say, "We've never had a truly libertarian society, so you can't say it wouldn't work," it's not only an argument from ignorance, but an implicit approval of coercive collectivism as well as an obvious fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics behind a given society.

[Ramen666]

Actually illusion Libertarianism has been tested in Iceland and it failed. You can also see what you get in the country of Somalia, another example of the failure of Libertarianism.

 

Libertarian Experiment in Iceland Fails

 

http://www.huffingto...n_b_172961.html

 

 

In autumn 1984, the Icelandic Libertarian Association arranged for American economist Milton Friedman to visit Iceland. During this visit, Friedman gave a lecture at the University of Iceland on the "Tyranny of the Status Quo," and debated the country's leading socialist intellectuals--including current president Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. This visit made a great impact on several young members of the Independence Party, including Davíð Oddsson, Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson, and Geir Haarde.

[florduh]

Actually illusion Libertarianism has been tested in Iceland and it failed. You can also see what you get in the country of Somalia, another example of the failures of Libertarianism.

 

But those failed experiments weren't True Libertarian. If only they had done it right......it would work.....really.......

[blackpudd1n]

It's a fascinating story, it really is. You can read all of it here: http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Hutt_River

 

Thanks, for posting that, that's really interesting. I often thought that someone should test different economic political systems. Something on the line of setting up a system, asking for volunteers to live in these communities of a set period of years, then comparing the different communities to see which ones seemed to be the most successful. Such communities would have to be autonomous from the surrounding government. And, I'm not sure how'd you'd handle a crime. There'd have to be rules set in place for when the surrounding government might need to step in. For me there so many arguments that end with, "Well you don't know what a true communist society is because we've never seen one successfully set up." I feel we need more experimental data. Wouldn't it be so much better if we knew one system actually did work better than another?

 

I think it's ironic to hear comments by Americans regarding communism, simply because the first socialist community that was ever set up was set up in America. It failed, like they do. If you'd like a source, I can give you a three-hour documentary, that goes through the history of socialism and all the different forms it took across the world. You might find it interesting. I'm just not going to right now, simply because I've been up all night and I'm buggered. But PM if you'd like to see the doco, and I'll get you the linkie

[Ouroboros]

I feel we need more experimental data. Wouldn't it be so much better if we knew one system actually did work better than another?

 

The reason we don't regularly perform such experiments is because it would a.) subvert the democratic process, and b.) require people to serve as test subjects without their consent, affecting nearly every aspect of their daily lives.

 

I mean, how would you feel if I assumed total control and said, "All right guys, we're going to try a dictatorship for a while, just to cover all the bases and get a bit of data."

 

Relegating human beings to the status of lab rats isn't the nicest thing I can think of.

 

That's why when Randians say, "We've never had a truly libertarian society, so you can't say it wouldn't work," it's not only an argument from ignorance, but an implicit approval of coercive collectivism as well as an obvious fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics behind a given society.

There's been some experiments to see how people act/react in different settings, like dictatorial, full freedom to do whatever, and some mix. You read about it in sociology and psychology. It seems like (which makes sense) that when there's a mix, it works best. When people feel they have a voice to give input, but there are someone who oversees and make sure everyone works for the same goal, just seems to work best for families, workplaces, and most likely in society.

[BMandeville]

Here's a video showcasing the anti-intellectualism and rampant stupidity that pervades modern libertarianism:

 

 

 

I'll give him credit for appearing to recognize that libertarianism is an ideal, not a practical matter, and as such it requires a change in public mindset as opposed to a change in policy. I'm still forced to admit that what he's advocating is stupid, sad, and disingenuous.

 

"80% of the books I put a star on, I don't read."

 

Come on, dude.