A libertarian utopia

Libertarians are united by opposition to government, but when it comes to planning a new society they are deeply divided

by 3,100 words
  • Read later or Kindle
    • Kindle
Don't step on me; the porcupine has become the symbol of the Free State Project. Detail from a 1929 motivational poster. Photo by David Pollack/Corbis

Don't step on me; the porcupine has become the symbol of the Free State Project. Detail from a 1929 motivational poster. Photo by David Pollack/Corbis

Livia Gershon is a freelance reporter who writes about the intersection of economics, politics and everyday life. Her work has appeared in Salon, LA Weekly and The Progressive, among others.

For a country where the national flag flies from front porches and convenience stores and where children recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning at school, we’re remarkably resistant to the notion of being governed. In the fall of 2013, the Pew Research Center found that only three in ten Americans trust the federal government to do what’s right ‘most of the time’. The self-conception of most Americans, with their visions of pioneers and plucky underdogs fighting for independence, is all about freedom. The flip side of that vision, however, is all about distrusting government.

And ‘government’, in US political discourse, is ideological. The right claims that excessive government hampers the ability of companies to create jobs; the left that it protects the public from the worst excesses of businesses. The divide is patently artificial: the vast majority of government economic policy draws no fire from conservatives. Still, by setting up ‘government’ as a dirty word in their anti-Democrat campaigns, the Republicans can claim freedom as their brand.

But if you really want to talk about what it means to oppose the government, the place to start isn’t with Republicans. It’s with the one group in the US political landscape that absolutely promises to take our rhetoric about freedom seriously: libertarians. Libertarians really do believe that government is the problem, as Ronald Reagan said back in 1981, and they’ve decided to get rid of it, or at least shrink it dramatically.

Enter Liberty Forum – an annual conference organised by the Free State Project, a group of activists who are trying to get 20,000 libertarians to move to the state of New Hampshire, where I live. These are people who gladly pit themselves not just against the welfare state or the regulation of business, but against military spending, state-funded schools, federal highways and government-issued money.

The Free State Project began life in 2001 with a call-to-arms by Jason Sorens, then a political science PhD student at Yale. Sorens suggested that a few thousand activists could radically change the political balance in the small state. ‘Once we’ve taken over the state government, we can slash state and local budgets, which make up a sizeable proportion of the tax and regulatory burden we face every day,’ he wrote. ‘Furthermore, we can eliminate substantial federal interference by refusing to take highway funds and the strings attached to them.’

Sorens’ views — which focus on problems with taxes and regulations and don’t dispute the government’s role in protecting commerce and conducting foreign policy – suggest a more-Republican-than-the-Republicans sort of outlook. But some people who’ve responded to his call subscribe to an entirely different ideology: an anarchism that sees government as a tool of wealthy capitalists. The rest fall somewhere in between. Free Staters say that what brings them together is a common belief that government is the opposite of freedom.

The crowd that gathered in February for Liberty Forum 2014 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Nashua was a pretty good reflection of the US libertarian movement: mainly male, and overwhelmingly white. A few people openly carried guns, which is thoroughly legal in New Hampshire.

One of the first speakers, Aaron Day, a Republican activist and member of the Free State Project board, railed against government plans to expand Medicaid. His PowerPoint flashed images comparing President Barack Obama’s health insurance reforms to the Soviet famine of the 1930s, when Stalin shipped away Ukraine’s wheat, leaving its people to starve. Day announced he’d be running for state Republican Party chair and called for everyone in the audience to seek local office. If I was looking for the embodiment of right-wing libertarianism, here he was, a true believer in cutting the government down to size from within – starting with programmes that benefit the poor.

I meet conservatives who’ve moved towards a live-and-let-live attitude that calls for government to stay out of issues such as sex and drugs

Johnna and Cory Bartholomew, a couple from California who sat among the crowd watching Day, plan to join the influx to New Hampshire soon. Even at a glance, it’s not hard to recognise the Bartholomews as a military couple, despite the pink streaks in Johnna’s hair. Cory wears a crew cut, and both of them radiate a friendliness rooted in bedrock self-confidence. For their 20th anniversary, they visited Hawai’i. This year, for their 30th, they flew east for Liberty Forum, as a sort of final test before moving to the state.

The Bartholomews met as Mormon students at Brigham Young University in Utah. Over the years, their conservatism on social issues dropped away and they left the Church. Cory doesn’t like to call himself an atheist. As an Air Force pilot whose job revolves around technology, he prefers ‘scientist’ – a believer in the empirically provable. ‘I’m not a person of faith,’ he says, ‘I’m a person of “show me”.’ I end up hearing many such stories at Liberty Forum: conservatives who say they’ve slowly drifted from a focus on social issues towards a live-and-let-live attitude that calls for government to stay out of issues such as sex and drugs. But if Aaron Day comes across as essentially right-wing, the Bartholomews seem different. For one thing, they talk more about free speech than taxes.

‘Our kids grew up hearing us talk about politics,’ Cory told me. When they were small, he and Johnna had their three children memorise the preamble to the US Constitution, with its promise to ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity’. Now in their 20s, two of their boys have taken up political activism against government overreach. They’ll protest against police cameras that photograph drivers’ licences at traffic lights, or they’ll hold up signs warning drivers about a drunk-driving checkpoint ahead.

One day in 2011, the brothers donned the Guy Fawkes masks made famous by Anonymous and held up a huge sign bearing the message ‘Taxes=Theft’ on a highway overpass. They got arrested after refusing to show their IDs to the cops. Eventually, two charges against them, relating to posting a sign on government property and wearing masks while committing a crime, were dropped. They ended up sentenced to probation for ‘delaying an officer’. To Johnna, the conviction was typical of a justice system that, despite its rhetoric, has little real respect for free speech: ‘We think “I have this little box of treasure called my rights,” but the moment you bring one of those out and try to exercise it, people are afraid.’

Their sons had already signed on for the Free State Project when the Bartholomews decided to follow their lead. Johnna says that her upbringing in the Mormon Church, founded by families who crossed a continent for their faith, inspires them and makes leaving their daughter and Johnna’s mother behind seem more manageable. ‘If you really believe in something and want to be part of something, then you leave; you leave what you’re used to and you may go somewhere you’re not so comfortable.’ This is, of course, what the Free State Project depends on – people willing to adopt a frontiering mentality so that they’ll leap cross-country to get beyond the current political landscape.

The Free State Project draws recruits with a mishmash of different philosophies, which isn’t surprising given libertarianism’s history. By some accounts, the first thinker to describe himself as libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, a mid-19th-century French anarcho-communist writer. Déjacque’s beef wasn’t just with government, but with capitalist bosses and religious hierarchies. Any kind of authority was an assault on individual autonomy. He even opposed families, with their elevation of husband above wife and parents above children. For about a century, this is what people meant when they said “libertarianism”: a far-left vision of autonomous individuals working as equals.

Then, beginning in the 1950s, a new definition of ‘libertarianism’ emerged in America, defining its love of freedom in ways that directly contradicted Déjacque. The new philosophy drew on the classical liberalism of Thomas Jefferson, filtered through an economic lens that made property rights central. This was the libertarianism of the Cato Institute think tank, formed in 1977 by economist Murray Rothbard, corporate right-wing superstar Charles Koch, and Edward Crane, a leader of the then-fledgling Libertarian Party. Here, the government was faulted not for standing with capital against the people but for getting in the way of progress by promoting socialist welfare systems.

To get a better handle on what sort of libertarianism was at play at Liberty Forum, I asked attendees what their ideal society would look like. The answer, for the most part, was that it would be completely different from the world we know. Drugs and prostitution would be legal. Education and medical care would be market commodities or gifts. In the absence of government support, individuals would be forced to help each other. Without liability protection or the ability to lobby for favours from the state, corporations as we know them would disappear in favour of smaller, more dynamic companies. The vision is so distant and theoretical that even Déjacque-style anarchists and Cato-esque reformers can work side by side in the same movement.

a good thing about working with libertarians is that no one expects to coerce you into participating in something you don’t approve of

James Davis, who plans to move his family to New Hampshire this fall, believes in a libertarianism that looks a bit like Déjacque’s: he wants to free regular people from oppressive institutions. When his first child was born, Davis and his wife got interested in parenting theories that advocate giving children as much freedom as possible. ‘We came upon these ideas of philosophical libertarianism,’ he said. ‘If people don’t trust adults, how can they trust children?’ The couple took over the management of a foundering summer camp in upstate New York and applied their ideas about freedom to it, giving campers as much leeway as possible to make their own choices. It’s the sort of vision that progressives have promoted for decades through democratic schools such as Summerhill, in Suffolk, England, and also one that many Free Staters embrace by home schooling their children and letting them help organise their own educations.

Philosophically, Davis doesn’t believe in government-funded benefits for the poor – drawn from taxation and backed up by prisons and guns. Having worked in non-profit organisations, he’s convinced that in a post-government society people will come through to help the needy without prodding. But he believes that society is a long way off. For now, he’s moving to New Hampshire to be among a community of people who want to improve the world through voluntary action. ‘I suspect it’ll be much like living anywhere,’ he said, ‘but around people who inspire me to be better.’ Davis doesn’t necessarily expect to encounter like minds everywhere, but says that a good thing about working with libertarians is that no one expects to coerce you into participating in something you don’t approve of.

The Bartholomews share Davis’s notion of building a better world outside government mechanisms. As a member of a local school board in California, Johnna recalls being faced with the question of whether to borrow money to pay for desperately needed repairs on a school. ‘I said, definitely, this school needs help, but we haven’t asked one business, we haven’t asked one person, to voluntarily give us one dollar.’

To long-time New Hampshire libertarian Jack Shimek, that focus on voluntary methods is the key to libertarianism. Shimek got interested in politics as a college student in Texas around 1969, a time when young US men worried less that the government would tax them too much than that it would ship them off to a jungle battlefield where they would die. A friend introduced him to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of radical, selfish individualism. Within a few years, he had moved to New York City and into Déjacque’s branch of libertarianism, to argue that the authoritarianism of capitalist bosses is inextricably connected to government tyranny.

Ayn Rand’s Objectivism contained a ‘fatal flaw’, says Shimek. She confused capitalism, a system that gives wealthy owners control over workers, with free markets, which depend on individual autonomy. ‘Capitalists are always in favour of keeping their piece of the pie through political power,’ Shimek told me. ‘When General Motors screws up, it has enough power to convince the government to bail it out.’ Another thing corporations can do, he says, is flood libertarian think tanks and magazines with money: ‘The libertarian movement, originally radical, was invaded by conservative reformers.’ Behind that, says Shimek, are corporate funders with an agenda: ‘They [just] want it to decrease regulation on them, they want it to lower taxes on them.’

Shimek was already living in New Hampshire when Jason Sorens’s idea of a Free State Project took hold. He was thrilled with the influx of people into the tiny libertarian community, but not with the focus on running for office and voting. ‘I said, wait a minute, we’re libertarians, we don’t believe in government.’

for libertarians, Bitcoin is a technology with the potential to circumvent a lot of what’s wrong with the world

At Liberty Forum, Shimek runs Alt Expo, an unofficial series of alternative programmes, with topics such as organic farming and local currencies. The idea is not to confront the government but to live outside it as much as possible. If the power of the state comes from coercion, creating alternatives uses a different kind of power, based in example and persuasion. Though this year’s Alt Expo was sparsely attended, Shimek said it had been a success anyway, because the official programming is now full of these kinds of ideas.

Plenty of people at Liberty Forum think electoral politics is a drag. Carla Gericke, president of the Free State Project, told me she finds politics ‘soul-numbing’. Sessions on farming and gardening – concrete methods of evading government-subsidised industrial agriculture – drew bigger audiences than the ones about lobbying or running for office. Ditto for presentations about technology, which expand the vision of voluntary action beyond government to a global scale. One session is run by two cousins with a start-up who envision a post-industrial economy where individuals trade goods, services and labour online, through portals such as Uber and Airbnb. Everyone is talking about Bitcoin. In the mainstream, the cyber currency comes up mostly as a curiosity, but at Liberty Forum it’s a technology with potential to circumvent a lot of what’s wrong with the world. At one session, panelists wax poetic about paying friends for rides, patronising local businesses, and buying clothes from Australia without taxes, credit card fees, or any contact with the global web of government and private banks.

At another tech sessions, Jeffrey Tucker draws huge crowds. He wears a suit, bow tie, and a mischievous expression, and is prone to phrases such as ‘outrunning troglodyte systems of power’. Tucker points to his smartphone as the symbol of a new society, one with frictionless information exchange, free online education and peer-to-peer lending. To Tucker’s mind, technology is transforming both corporate structures and banking, and politics simply doesn’t much matter. The goal is simply to circumvent dull and lumbering government bureaucrats. ‘We’re going to displace all the institutions of the state,’ he promises gleefully.

By the second-to-last night of the forum, Cory Bartholomew has snapped selfies with a handful of people he calls his ‘liberty heroes’. People such as Cody Wilson, who helped invent the first plastic guns that can be produced on 3D printers, and Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack, former government employees who became whistle-blowers, exposing domestic government surveillance and the illegal interrogation of terror suspects. Their stories make Cory wonder if he was naive about the military earlier in his career.

Other delegates flock to an unofficial party at the Quill, a private club and meeting space inside an unmarked storefront in Manchester, New Hampshire. Downstairs, dance music plays and colourful lights throb between the old ceiling beams. Antigone Darling, a slight, 20-something podcaster who’s the host of the party, hands out sex toys to anyone in her audience who yells loud enough: one to Amanda Billyrock, an anarchist who became a libertarian star after she met allegations of drunk driving with counter-allegations of police misconduct; another to ‘Objectivist Girl’, who wears dramatic eye make-up and makes videos explaining the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Upstairs, a late-night dinner is for sale: grass-fed beef burger with grass-fed bacon and broccoli slaw salad – technically illegal since the cook refuses to get a food service permit. A group of young men stand in a circle talking about their tech start-up, a company that facilitates the use of Bitcoin.

J J Schlessinger, the Quill’s manager, explains a plan to distribute blankets to homeless people who live near the club. He’s also interested in discouraging vandals, not by calling the cops but by keeping an eye on them, maybe asking if their mothers would approve of what they’re doing. Schlessinger uses the word love a lot. He runs the Quill out of love, and wants to help his neighbours with love. The important thing, he says, is for people to reach out to each other in person, not delegate the job to government.

It’s easy to see the Free State Project as a sort of outsize version of the government-hating right. There are issues that libertarians and the left oppose together – high defence spending, corporate subsidies – but they are hard to get at: mostly legislated at the federal level and protected by wealthy interests. It’s much easier to get elected to the local school board and slash local budgets, or to lobby the state legislature against the expansion of health benefits. Republican Party-style libertarians are thus much more visible, and they spend a lot of time trying to cut taxes and reduce spending, invoking the revolutionary spirit of 1776 as they go.

But, looking at the party at the Quill, there’s the suggestion of another American myth: the one about pioneers, often bearing wildly idealistic notions, who come together to build new institutions. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US history knows how fraught with missteps and malice the realities of that process have been, but the myth is a powerful one: if we distrust the government, then we have to trust each other. It’s a notion around which anarchists, Republicans and almost anyone else can find common ground, given sufficient optimism about building a new society.

As Liberty Forum winds down, Johnna and Cory Bartholomew are excited about moving. Johnna’s just seen a panel of volunteers who started charitable organisations to encourage self-sufficiency, and she thinks it’s something she’d like to do. This is the thing, ultimately, that seems to bring people to the Free State Project. They become libertarians because they hate taxes, or fear a police state, or distrust collusion between the state and corporate power. But they move to New Hampshire because they want, more than any of these things, to build something new together.

Read more essays on , and

Comments

  • Barzuma

    I hate to break it to the Libertarians, but taxes, like death, is inevitable (are inevitable?). It may not be called a "tax" or "internal revenue stream"; it may be called "annual fee" or "community services fund" or "membership commitment" or whatever, but it will be, de facto, a form of taxation.

    Because that's what taxes are, ideally speaking; a form of "membership fee." Just like paying a club's membership fee entitles you to enjoy all the amenities that the club offers, so do paying taxes entitles you to all the benefits of living in the country, like cheap subsidized gasoline, roads and highways that are free from potholes, a functional sewage system, etc.,

    Ideally, of course.

    Unfortunately, there are people who want to enjoy the benefits of membership without paying the membership fee.

  • Kathy Renee Jopling

    why cant the left do this, just one time. lets take over a completely republican state, like Texas and make it into a democrats wet dream. just follow the rights lead and change every law they have on the books. give the best schooling, the best hospital care and help for everyone. lets show what we know we can pull off. then we can take another page from the rights books and make anyone who leans right that lives there live like hell. we can claim they are taking away our freedoms if the complain too much. i would like to think that if we could do this, other states or even its people might recognize what they could have and it might just change the country for the better.

  • Ianto_Jones

    It's simple really. When Libertarians are being referred to on the Internet negatively, they are a gigantic monolithic group walking in lockstep with each other and who all have identical views. When they are being referred to positively they are a fractured, disorgnized group who can't possibly get anything done.

  • Chadwick

    I didn't bother reading the article because the title is quite imprecise and misleading; "Libertarians are united by opposition to government,". No, absolutely not. They are not against government, they are against a Federal government which has too much power. They want state governments to have the power, just like the Constitution outlined.

    • tesla3090

      I think you're confusing libertarians with states-rights people. Most libertarians are just as opposed to state government overreach as to federal.

  • American Cynic

    As a libertarian, I really enjoyed this article. I liked how the author used Déjacque as the communist foil to the "libertarian" capitalists of the Cato Institute. I guess she chose him because he coined the term "libertarian," but it's good to see a crazy anarchist who was not sexist like Proudhon or already well-known like Kropotkin get some mention.

  • Paulbot 1138

    Libertarianism - the radical notion that other people are not your property.

    For anyone interested in what libertarians believe, the whole philosophy can essentially be summed up with the phrase: "All and only voluntary transactions are just."

  • homer

    Compared with the past we now live in incredible peaceful
    times. Modern wars have killed a lot of people, but as a percentage of the
    overall population they were a drop in the bucket. Poverty can claim more victims
    than war, so does drunk driving. Besides, you don’t need the concept of government
    or nation state to want to kill somebody. People have being killing each other
    long before there were governments of any kind, and with greater vigor I might
    add.

    Social democracy was born as a countermeasure to the
    atrocities of the past.

    I lived in a third world country. There was no government to
    tell me what to do, no government to collect taxes (most people worked under
    the table), no regulations, people were free to do what they will because there
    was no government to stop them. Guess what? People still died in large numbers,
    children died, people went hungry. There was charity, not enough. What was the
    solution? Not less government, but better government. I tried the libertarian
    dream, and it felt ugly, smelled even worse.

    I rather live in Scandinavian countries. Call me a socialist
    if you will, but freedom has no value if you are hungry.

    It is easy to speak of freedom when you have a full stomach,
    free school, and shelter. Freedom, however you define it or envision it, is a
    social construct. And for you to envision it you need first to acquire the
    basics, and the best and most efficient way to do so is collective effort. That
    is why living in Scandinavian countries is better than living in Somalia, or even the U.S.

    By the way, social democracy includes the concept of civil
    rights. And the best sanitation and modern medicine are in socially democratic
    countries.

  • homer

    I think your problem is not with government, but with the American government in particular. You know, there are other countries that do things differently. I would tend to agree with you a little more if you didn't lump all governments in the same bag.

  • flakwhacker

    You must not have been paying much attention to the news over, say, the last 10 years. Your quote:

    "If I were to threaten to hurt someone in order for force them to fund my project, that would be both illegal and considered morally outrageous."

    There has not been a single bill proposed by a Democrat in Congress without some libertarian-tea party-neocon shill inserting riders, pork barrel projects or other junk that was intended to be an anathma to its original intent, causing it to fail.

    Right now as we speak, the EPA is being sued to block measures designed to clean up the Chesapeake Bay from decades of sewage, pesticide runoff, heavy metals from shipbuilding and other damage that has all but killed its ability to provide seafood for human consumption. And who is suing to block it? Land-locked states nowhere close to any water! - neocon-run states that think an "over-reaching gubbermint" might deny them their "liberty" to allow cattle and other live stock effluence to seep into ground water.

    Yay. Free-dumb.

    That "gubbermint" was set up to provide for the "general welfare" as that "Lousy Piece Of Paper" says right at the top - the reason why human beings set up governments in the first place, to prevent wealthy elite from rollracking the less-advantaged. Libertarianism in any form is a fabulous idea if you completely factor out human nature. Without that, it's a useless fad, about as valid as Marxist Communism.

  • Kathy Renee Jopling

    speaking of history. you are right because voluntary interaction and charity have been going on for a lot longer. crap, they started before the bible was written. government aid is relatively new if you consider ALL of history but in the short amount of time is has been here it sure is getting gaining speed. also in the past we had less people(duh) so

    voluntary interaction and charity was close to enough.

    now, we have more people and less that think they need to help and even less that can help. so what did we do? we set up a system that made people give just a fraction of a fraction of a percent each week to help these people. we even went one further made the same system help us when we get old, protect us from both outsiders and insiders, educate us and provide chances for us to succeed.

    i guess what i am trying to say is that you are right if you consider ALL OF TIME but you are horrible wrong if you consider, say, the last 50 years.

  • bobgrumman

    No income tax in America, for one thing. But how it was better or worse is too complex and subjective for anyone to say anything very useful about here. But I would say one certain way the 19th century was better than later ones was its having physical frontiers. What we need now are planets for libertarians to go to.

  • bobgrumman

    Capitalism is not necessarily free market, but I don't see why it can't be.

  • mikelorrey

    All other governments are even worse. If there were some place else to go, we'd have gone there. There is no place left on this earth.

  • mikelorrey

    Kathy, this is a perennial bit of confusion by those who support government: Corporations are creations of government. The only power they have is that which the government gives them, and the only reason the government has that power to give them in the first place is that YOU, the voter who wants more government, votes to give government the authority to have those powers to give. You create the problems you try to blame on the corporations, while ignoring or denying your own culpability as the root cause.

  • mikelorrey

    *I* Grew up here in New Hampshire, all my life, and have seen flatlander liberals move here to try to change it into the sort of leftist hell holes they came from. The Free Staters are reinforcements for true Granite Staters to take back our state and our government and liberties.

  • Roy Niles

    Our 19th century civil war was a free for all event.

  • tesla3090

    You're right that freedom doesn't matter when you are hungry, but you're wrong in your assumptions of what a libertarian society would look like.

    I'm willing to guess your third world country wasn't not a place with respect for freedom and human rights. Most third world countries are led by oppressive, corrupt governments, or oppressive, corrupt cartels. Neither of which are libertarian or would be tolerated in libertarian societies.

  • tesla3090

    Modern civilization was built on practices we loath such as slavery, warfare, oppressive imperialism, etc. The evils of the past may have been necessary to reach the goods of the present, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't dispense of them the second we have the chance.

  • Homer

    I guess we could we could go back and forth forever, but as long as there is no name calling.
    No, community organisations and charity are not better as a social safety net. They never were and never will be. I don't know why people keep arguing that point since it's so easy to see its falseness. And they do nothing to prevent the problem of poverty in the first place. Best way to prevent poverty is making sure everyone makes a living wage (Have you ever lived in a Scandinavian country?)
    Do you honestly believe governments are the only source of bureaucracy, inefficiency and monopoly? Look at the tulip mania of the 17th century. No governments there to assist in the economic bubble. Its human nature.
    There are certain niceties of living in the 21st century; weekends, holidays, minimum wage, overtime pay, safety in the workplace. All those thing happened because the government mandated it, they would have not happened on their own, never. Imagine the American south, do you honestly think that it would have opened up to desegregation without federal intervention? No, it wouldn't, never.
    Look around you, much of what makes life worth while exist because, at some point, we decided we would like those things, so we taxed ourselves, and made them happen.

  • Paulbot 1138

    Not quite: we value the right to life just as highly. The difference lies, I think, in the conception of the nature of rights.
    A right is commonly asserted to be one of two things: either a negative right, which determines what others may not do to you; or a positive right, which determines what others must provide for you. The difference between libertarians and other political philosophies is that libertarians wholly reject the idea of positive rights altogether, and assert that all rights are negative.
    Your right to life, therefore, extends merely to the point where others must not kill or injure you, but does not include any provision for providing for your welfare.

  • Paulbot 1138

    No true Scotsman...

  • tesla3090

    Your first statement is a strawman. Libertarian societies still have rules, and laws against murder would be among ones all libertarians would agree with.

    It's funny you'd bring up that list, although some of the methodology is suspect (rainfall, standard temperature deviation from 14C, and the number of female legislators seem to me to have little impact on quality of life.) That list actually correlates quite closely with the Heritage Foundation's "economic freedom index".

    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

    The Top 10 from the quality of life study:
    1. Switzerland
    2. Australia
    3. Norway
    4. Sweden
    5. Denmark
    6. Singapore
    7. New Zealand
    8. Netherlands
    9. Canada
    10. Hong Kong

    Top 10 from the economic freedom index:
    1. Hong Kong
    2. Singapore
    3. Australia
    4. Switzerland
    5. New Zealand
    6. Canada
    7. Chile
    8. Mauritius
    9. Ireland
    10. Denmark

    So 7 of the top 10 quality of life appear in the top 10 economic freedom list. So that list actually does support my point. Now, granted there are a lot of variables in quality of life, but many studies have shown strong correlations between economic freedom and quality of life. Many of the more notable social democracies (UK, France, Germany, etc) rank the same or lower on the quality of life scale than the US.

    Most libertarians still want the government involved in law enforcement, the judicial system, etc. (That's what separates libertarians from anarcho-capitalists) so things like pollution and violence can still be controlled in a libertarian society.

  • Homer

    I don't believe you are getting it. Libertarians are not the only ones concerned with economic freedom. It is annoying to no end when you assume that you, and only you, are concerned with economic freedom.

    Once again, let me repeat this; the world is not black and white, once again, the world is not black and white, or back wards if you like, the world is not white and black. Please stop it. You do not have monopoly of freedom, you just think you do.

    Yes. the best countries for quality of life have plenty of economic freedom, granted. But they are far, far, far, very far from a libertarian ideal. Why? because the concept of economic freedom, while important, does not trump all other values. First, they are almost all heavily taxed, which you would equate with theft. Their economies are also heavily regulated. economic freedom exist, but only after (and this is the important part you are not understanding) only after certain unalienable rights are given to all citizens, period, regardless of financial status. 1. All provide some form of universal health care (Socialized medicine for some, private for others) But regardless on how it is done the government makes sure they all have it.

    2. Workers rights. Even Switzerland has 1/5th of its workforce unionized. Once again, their respected governments make sure all workers have some form of protection.

    3. Taxes. look at the chart...

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG

    Not all the countries are included, but there is clearly a correlation between taxes and quality of life.

    Before you can build a roof you need to build the walls, right? Same for an economy. before you can boast of economic freedom you need to make sure your citizens enjoy the basics, otherwise what point is there to that freedom? tell me?
    So, yes. If quality of life means taxing you, then so be it, call it theft if you like, or rape I don't care. While I value your freedom, I also value a life worth living, and I know you would bitch and moan about taxes=theft, and don't tread on me slogans, but you would enjoy the services the above mentioned societies offer, just like I do.

  • Homer

    And that is a good thing?

  • tesla3090

    First of all, let's not stereotype, and second I never made the claim that only libertarians care about economic freedom or even freedom in general. Don't put words in my mouth.

    While you're right that several of the nations listed have higher tax burdens, other such as Hong Kong and Singapore do not (Less than 15% GDP in both cases). If you include the fact that several nations near the bottom of the quality of life index have large tax burdens you have to conclude that the simplification of "tax burden correlates with quality of life" isn't supported by the data. Besides, economic freedom is about more than taxes.

    The real question with taxes is whether that service is worth the negatives of the tax burden and whether there is a more efficient way to provide that service. I contend in a lot of cases (but not all) there is a better solution (but that's a separate debate).

    On workers rights, as long as union participation is voluntary, they provide an important counterpoint to corporate interests and play a huge role in ensuring good working conditions and benefits. I would guess most libertarians would agree with that. (Although considering libertarianism is just as diverse as any other ideology who knows...)

  • Homer

    No, I will not have an argument on your terms. I simply reject your assumption that freedom is somehow the highest moral value that trumps all others. I refuse to have such a narrow view. Justice is just as important.

    You simply cannot provide me with any good reason why your freedom is more important than my well being. Why should we let people die from lack of medical care simply because taxing you feels unfair to you?. Why should I even care how it feels to you? Because it offends you sensivitites? really? death and poverty offends me more than your malcontent. So I will do injustice to you (if that is what you call taxes) to prevent a greater one. Why shouldn't.

    21,000 die every day from preventable diseases and starvation, simply because their right to life conflicts with someone's right to private property. And do you want me to feel sad for you because you have to pay a few taxes? Really? I find the whole thing laughable. Poor you, the way libertarians bitch about taxes you would think they were holocaust survivors.

    The reality is that the concept of private property has killed more people than all the wars combined.

    Yes, we will tax you if is necessary. You liking it is of no concequence to the rest of the civilized world. Get a grip, you are not that important.

or newsletter