I feel that there is a terminological gap, and possibly a lack of conceptual clarity, for people who agree with the following:
Fact 1: Individuals have (potentially different) goals
Value judgment 2: Individual goals that don't physically affect others should not be stopped by the state
Value judgment 3: Individual goals whose realization would have a physically measurable effect on other individuals, but not endorsed by those other individuals, should not be stopped by the state
Conclusion 4: There should exist a huge and convoluted state that makes sure no individual coerces other individuals, while at the same time preventing all the possible failure modes of the first half of this sentence, all the while assuming that since individuals have potentially destructive goals, at no time should the state's guarantee be based on anyone's "good character".
I was not a democrat, because I didn't want major laws to be voted. Either the law serves the interests of protecting individual goals and should exist, or it should not exist.
Was I a believer in a democracy with a longer than usual list of inviolable rights? No! Even for the small things, I don't want people to vote if they would like the law based on whatever political philosophy they have; I want people to vote whether they think the law is a good way of fostering Conclusion 4. But this is not what is usually understood under democracy, so no, I wasn't this either.
Was I a libertarian? In the US, the word means my Value Judgment 2 + "anti-state capitalism". In Spain, and possibly other European countries with a strong anarchist tradition, the word means/meant my Value Judgment 2 + "anti-state communism". My disagreement is twofold: On the one hand, and obviously, I want a huge state. But more importantly: I am very confused about economics, and willing to discuss about it from my political stance. Let me elaborate on both points, in the inverse order.
Economic agnosticism
I believe "economical facts" are neither obviously defended by my VJ2, nor obviously forbidden by VJ3. I am currently agnostic about them, but even if I ever reach a conclusion, I would still like to have a handy word for my economically-agnostic libertarianism. I propose the term "Wikipedia libertarianism" for that, for possibly obvious reasons to be elaborated in the next point.
What is an economical fact? I have in mind something like the fact that a person is the legal owner of a factory and can set the salary under which he is willing to hire workers to work in his factory. This ownership is not a physical fact, unlike the fact that my fist is approaching your face or that the music I'm playing is entering your ears.
It is a very complex fact that means something like: If anyone tries to enter without your permission, you could call the police, and everyone reliably knows the police would help you, so people are deterred from entering.
So this is not a primitive fact in defense of which a state can be build, but something that only exists because a specific kind of state has been built. Do we want this specific kind of state? Communists say no, non-libertarian anarchists say yes, I say I am confused.
(Foot note: But see later for a physical definition of property)
if you are thinking about you protecting your factory with guns, and then it becomes a VJ2 issue
Guns are obviously incompatible; but article 2 is good!
Huge state
So what kind of state am I imagining? Unsurprisingly given the title, a state that looks like Wikipedia. The reason why I don't use a term such as "pro-state libertarianism" is that I think real states don't look that much like Wikipedia, and I don't like them that much (also pro-state libertarianism probably sounds contradictory in the US).
What does a state similar to Wikipedia look like? I imagine a public-facing interface of options for the citizens (you can call the police, get information about the laws or specific options at your reach, etc.), and a "Talk" section where every single fact of the state, both stable (a law) and punctual (a specific decision) can be commented on by everyone.
Every state process that can be automated, should, but never with opaque AI algorithms, but only with transparent, revisable (potentially AI-created) algorithms.
For the millions of small decisions that "guaranteeing that everyone's rights are respected" requires, there would be "Talk" pages for a discussion, and every vote that needs to be taken on decisions without an objective clear answer would be open only for people with certain credentials (probably ad hoc credentials for each question, and more on the direction of "has participated in this debate for a long time" than "has a university degree", but none of this is essential for the concept and there could be disagreement about this within a Wiki-libertarian position).
A Wiki-archipelago
How does Wiki-libertarianism compare to Scott Alexander's Archipelago, the well-known utopia of islands with different, self-chosen rules, that allow citizens to swap islands any time they want, all under an overarching state that does things like military defense and climate change measures?
Scott shares the first three points from above, and nominally agrees with the fourth, but I don't think he thinks through how huge and convoluted the meta-state would have to be. What if a citizen like one island's rules, moves there, and suffer what he considers to be injustice from the island's authority? A Wiki-libertarian would like the meta-state to offer that citizen the chance to sue the island, and there should be an examination of what the rules of the island say exactly, and of what happened exactly, etc. So the island's state is not really a state, but more like a private club that owns a vast amount of land. And I imagine such suings to happen around a million times per day and island, so the "meta"-state (=the only state) should be huge and convoluted to deal with all of them, while at the same time offering everyone the chance to evaluate whether the dealings of the state in each and every case were fair.
Family
Just like no specific economic system follows from the premises of Wiki-libertarianism, no specific family institutions follow from it. Wiki-libertarianism probably implies something like the fact that every person has the right to declare themselves an adult whenever they feel like it (and understand the consequences), but it doesn't say what should happen with children before that. Just like with economical facts, "family facts" aren't previous to the state: the fact that a parent determines what the child does is not a fact of those individuals alone, but a consequence of the fact that if anyone else takes the child away, the police would help the parent. So you can't build a state to build something that only happens because of the state, and the discussion of what should happen is previous to the state building.
Guns 1
Given that individuals owning guns gives them the chance to kill other individuals without the state being able to stop this violating of VJ3, it follows from Wiki-libertarianism that guns should be in principle forbidden, and only allowed under special conditions and with special circumstances.
An Opt-Out?
Wiki-libertarianism is orthogonal to the question of whether one is fully libertarian or libertarian paternalist (Wiki-libertarianism for willing adults, paternalism for everyone else).
Lock-in Paradox
A Wiki-libertarian sees every decision as revisable under process that are themselves revisable, and so and so on... But at some point, there have to be a (very complex) set of rules such that changing them would change the system to something else. The Lock-In paradox is that a Wiki-libertarianism has to be in favor of some lock-in of rules at some very deep level. Otherwise, it would be possible to some powerful group of people to use those mechanisms to change the whole system. It is a paradox in the sense that any (reasonable) wiki-libertarian will doubt that a perfect system can ever be designed, so they are choosing one failure mode over another: rather have a suboptimal, but hopefully not so bad, unchangeable system, than to have a changeable system that is changed into something else.
Guns 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This sounds like a sensible idea, and even though I'm not sure if it follows from Wiki-libertarianism, and think it's at least compatible with it. I would however separate the two points.
The Militia
Armies are necessary for countries (because of other countries), but also dangerous for the states that have them (because armies are made of humans and can be used by other humans). Trying to avoid potentially more dangerous professional soldiers, while at the same time educating citizens on how this aspect of the state works, seems like a good idea. The way real states do this seems optimized to be stupid, so we won't get much inspiration from them. What I imagine is something like:
military service is voluntary
but possibly a condition for certain political things
in different configurations given skill, etc., it is open to everyone at every age
it is open in slots as small as possible, so citizens don't have to sacrifice long-term plans
A free State
Implied in the amendment is the idea that the militia doesn't simply protect against external invasion, but also against internal evolution into tyranny. Achieving this goal is necessary for Wiki-libertarianism, and the implied threat of citizen resistance against tyranny seems like a good mechanism, but I don't find it convincing that it should be the same militia who protects citizens against tyranny. Indeed, I think the danger is that every pre-existing militia can be bought to do a coup, so the only appropriate militia is one that doesn't pre-exist a coup. How does that look like?
I imagine something like every street/quarter/village to have an armory with enough weapons for the people inside that area. There is an elected figure in each area who knows the password to the armory. Once every [year] the citizens of the area are invited to see the armory and to understand how it works. If anyone uses the password at any point, that person and the elected official go to jail. But the armory's gates are connected to a public service announcement, so every citizen is informed when someone does. The implied threat is that a tyranny that had enough popular opposition should fear all or many citizens going to their armories and rebelling against the tyranny.
Additional details could be added, like each armory's weapons being contained in different lockers, each of which needs a password saved in a different armory.
A final thought on the implied threat of violent resistance against tyranny
It is a pity that this topic is never discussed / treated as madness in Europe, and associated with the right for citizens to own guns in the US.
I feel that there is a terminological gap, and possibly a lack of conceptual clarity, for people who agree with the following:
I was not a democrat, because I didn't want major laws to be voted. Either the law serves the interests of protecting individual goals and should exist, or it should not exist.
Was I a believer in a democracy with a longer than usual list of inviolable rights? No! Even for the small things, I don't want people to vote if they would like the law based on whatever political philosophy they have; I want people to vote whether they think the law is a good way of fostering Conclusion 4. But this is not what is usually understood under democracy, so no, I wasn't this either.
Was I a libertarian? In the US, the word means my Value Judgment 2 + "anti-state capitalism". In Spain, and possibly other European countries with a strong anarchist tradition, the word means/meant my Value Judgment 2 + "anti-state communism". My disagreement is twofold: On the one hand, and obviously, I want a huge state. But more importantly: I am very confused about economics, and willing to discuss about it from my political stance. Let me elaborate on both points, in the inverse order.
Economic agnosticism
I believe "economical facts" are neither obviously defended by my VJ2, nor obviously forbidden by VJ3. I am currently agnostic about them, but even if I ever reach a conclusion, I would still like to have a handy word for my economically-agnostic libertarianism. I propose the term "Wikipedia libertarianism" for that, for possibly obvious reasons to be elaborated in the next point.
What is an economical fact? I have in mind something like the fact that a person is the legal owner of a factory and can set the salary under which he is willing to hire workers to work in his factory. This ownership is not a physical fact, unlike the fact that my fist is approaching your face or that the music I'm playing is entering your ears.
It is a very complex fact that means something like: If anyone tries to enter without your permission, you could call the police, and everyone reliably knows the police would help you, so people are deterred from entering.
So this is not a primitive fact in defense of which a state can be build, but something that only exists because a specific kind of state has been built. Do we want this specific kind of state? Communists say no, non-libertarian anarchists say yes, I say I am confused.
(Foot note: But see later for a physical definition of property)
if you are thinking about you protecting your factory with guns, and then it becomes a VJ2 issue
Guns are obviously incompatible; but article 2 is good!
Huge state
So what kind of state am I imagining? Unsurprisingly given the title, a state that looks like Wikipedia. The reason why I don't use a term such as "pro-state libertarianism" is that I think real states don't look that much like Wikipedia, and I don't like them that much (also pro-state libertarianism probably sounds contradictory in the US).
What does a state similar to Wikipedia look like? I imagine a public-facing interface of options for the citizens (you can call the police, get information about the laws or specific options at your reach, etc.), and a "Talk" section where every single fact of the state, both stable (a law) and punctual (a specific decision) can be commented on by everyone.
Every state process that can be automated, should, but never with opaque AI algorithms, but only with transparent, revisable (potentially AI-created) algorithms.
For the millions of small decisions that "guaranteeing that everyone's rights are respected" requires, there would be "Talk" pages for a discussion, and every vote that needs to be taken on decisions without an objective clear answer would be open only for people with certain credentials (probably ad hoc credentials for each question, and more on the direction of "has participated in this debate for a long time" than "has a university degree", but none of this is essential for the concept and there could be disagreement about this within a Wiki-libertarian position).
A Wiki-archipelago
How does Wiki-libertarianism compare to Scott Alexander's Archipelago, the well-known utopia of islands with different, self-chosen rules, that allow citizens to swap islands any time they want, all under an overarching state that does things like military defense and climate change measures?
Scott shares the first three points from above, and nominally agrees with the fourth, but I don't think he thinks through how huge and convoluted the meta-state would have to be. What if a citizen like one island's rules, moves there, and suffer what he considers to be injustice from the island's authority? A Wiki-libertarian would like the meta-state to offer that citizen the chance to sue the island, and there should be an examination of what the rules of the island say exactly, and of what happened exactly, etc. So the island's state is not really a state, but more like a private club that owns a vast amount of land. And I imagine such suings to happen around a million times per day and island, so the "meta"-state (=the only state) should be huge and convoluted to deal with all of them, while at the same time offering everyone the chance to evaluate whether the dealings of the state in each and every case were fair.
Family
Just like no specific economic system follows from the premises of Wiki-libertarianism, no specific family institutions follow from it. Wiki-libertarianism probably implies something like the fact that every person has the right to declare themselves an adult whenever they feel like it (and understand the consequences), but it doesn't say what should happen with children before that. Just like with economical facts, "family facts" aren't previous to the state: the fact that a parent determines what the child does is not a fact of those individuals alone, but a consequence of the fact that if anyone else takes the child away, the police would help the parent. So you can't build a state to build something that only happens because of the state, and the discussion of what should happen is previous to the state building.
Guns 1
Given that individuals owning guns gives them the chance to kill other individuals without the state being able to stop this violating of VJ3, it follows from Wiki-libertarianism that guns should be in principle forbidden, and only allowed under special conditions and with special circumstances.
An Opt-Out?
Wiki-libertarianism is orthogonal to the question of whether one is fully libertarian or libertarian paternalist (Wiki-libertarianism for willing adults, paternalism for everyone else).
Lock-in Paradox
A Wiki-libertarian sees every decision as revisable under process that are themselves revisable, and so and so on... But at some point, there have to be a (very complex) set of rules such that changing them would change the system to something else. The Lock-In paradox is that a Wiki-libertarianism has to be in favor of some lock-in of rules at some very deep level. Otherwise, it would be possible to some powerful group of people to use those mechanisms to change the whole system. It is a paradox in the sense that any (reasonable) wiki-libertarian will doubt that a perfect system can ever be designed, so they are choosing one failure mode over another: rather have a suboptimal, but hopefully not so bad, unchangeable system, than to have a changeable system that is changed into something else.
Guns 2
This sounds like a sensible idea, and even though I'm not sure if it follows from Wiki-libertarianism, and think it's at least compatible with it. I would however separate the two points.
The Militia
Armies are necessary for countries (because of other countries), but also dangerous for the states that have them (because armies are made of humans and can be used by other humans). Trying to avoid potentially more dangerous professional soldiers, while at the same time educating citizens on how this aspect of the state works, seems like a good idea. The way real states do this seems optimized to be stupid, so we won't get much inspiration from them. What I imagine is something like:
A free State
Implied in the amendment is the idea that the militia doesn't simply protect against external invasion, but also against internal evolution into tyranny. Achieving this goal is necessary for Wiki-libertarianism, and the implied threat of citizen resistance against tyranny seems like a good mechanism, but I don't find it convincing that it should be the same militia who protects citizens against tyranny. Indeed, I think the danger is that every pre-existing militia can be bought to do a coup, so the only appropriate militia is one that doesn't pre-exist a coup. How does that look like?
I imagine something like every street/quarter/village to have an armory with enough weapons for the people inside that area. There is an elected figure in each area who knows the password to the armory. Once every [year] the citizens of the area are invited to see the armory and to understand how it works. If anyone uses the password at any point, that person and the elected official go to jail. But the armory's gates are connected to a public service announcement, so every citizen is informed when someone does. The implied threat is that a tyranny that had enough popular opposition should fear all or many citizens going to their armories and rebelling against the tyranny.
Additional details could be added, like each armory's weapons being contained in different lockers, each of which needs a password saved in a different armory.
A final thought on the implied threat of violent resistance against tyranny
It is a pity that this topic is never discussed / treated as madness in Europe, and associated with the right for citizens to own guns in the US.
Written at Inscribe.