How Would the Gulch Not Devolve Into Statism?

Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 2 months ago to Government
83 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Talking about my question of *where* a Gulch could be located, Lana wrote "Maybe the real first step is to form a group of serious members and outline the goals of such a community."

That made me realize I'm not even sure what a Gulch government would be like. Suppose somehow a libertarian state comes into existence. How would it be different from the US?:
1. Self-reliance - The first generation there would be self-reliant by definition. The struggle would be pass those values to all the children.
2. Regulations - Maybe some things that are handled by regulations would be handled by courts in the Gulch. Regulations in the US control things that used to be settled by litigation, making the US less litigious than it used to be. Would the Gulch keep some regulations but keep them more narrowly focused on activities that have a clear proven cost on others?
3. Taxes - Most people who think taxes are too high want to maintain spending on at least one of the three largest areas of spending: military, Social Security / Medicare, Welfare for the poor. It's a cliche that politicians like to say "I'll balance the budget without raising taxes, or touching Social Security or the military," Unless we agree to cut all those things, there need to be separate Gulches. That means when some evildoers are laying the possible foundation for WWIII, our response has to be, “we have a small army supported by minutemen if the evildoers come here.” If grandma becomes paralyzed by a stroke, the family and maybe people from her church get ready to open their pocketbooks or provide care once she spends through her $200k life savings in four year's time. I say people can rise to those occasions, but would we have to resist the temptation to look to gov't for a solution.
4. Weapons - In my mind there's a continuum between banning mild weapons such as pepper spray and allowing people to build weapons of mass destruction. Most Gulch citizens would want to allow shotguns, semi-auto rifles, and handguns. There might be debate about someone who wants to protect his house with a UAV equipped with high explosives. If there were a Gulch would the same gun debate persist but just about different weapons?
5. War on Drugs / Terror – The simple solution is to treat drugs as a medical problem for those who seek addiction treatment and treat “terrorism” as a criminal problem using the same court system that tries people who commit murders for more quotidian motives, e.g. to get the insurance money. Would everyone buy into that?
6. Disgusting Behavior – Disgusting behavior is grown adults flirting with 12 y/o boys and girls, someone contacting the family of a murder victim claiming to know how the victim died as cruel prank, lewd behavior in public, burning flags or other items held as sacred to get attention, drawing pictures glamorizing rape, incest, murder, etc. Do we just allow these things as the price of liberty? Do we state somehow in the Constitution, we won't give in and start using force to stop disgusting behavior.

Suddenly I think the biggest problem with Gulch is NOT where to hide it or how to coexist with existing power structures. It's how not to slide back to statism. On all six (6) of those issues, I can see us going from a very free society to right back where we are-- a little island micronation with moderately high taxes, with half the taxes going to defense, and half going to social spending, and all other gov't functions sustained through borrowing. The same people who defend their right to have an automatic rifle, want men with guns to protect the children from drugs and other human problems. That's depressing. If you tell me, "but taxes would be 25% less b/c we wouldn't be buying baby formula for some irresponsible single parents and we wouldn't be subsidizing grandma's medical care," it doesn't make it that much less depressing. Great, instead of sending 40% of our profits in fed and state quarterly estimates, we get to send 30% of our profits. That's a small step toward liberty, but not libertarian paradise.

If I want a liberal paradise where the vast majority are politically liberal, work in jobs related to research, science, and technology, and believe in respecting civil liberties even for unpopular things like polyamory, I already live there. My luck I was born here. I have heard there are rightwing versions all over. How do we get the libertarian version?

Even assuming the Gulch magically existed in the open and other gov't's and peoples of the world left it alone and never attempted to meddle, how would we keep the Gulch from devolving into statism?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by Lana 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will read the books you recommend. Are you aware that there is a publication that identifies all 'intentional communities' and writes about their purpose, membership requirements, location etc. it would be interesting to research which ones are flourishing and why.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that the council members are made up of problem solving people with a passion and a vision who work within the set parameters of the document that outlines the directives of such a society. They are administrators and leaders. They posses certain skills and attributes.... And a proven track record. Skinner addresses this in Walden Two. It's been awhile since I read Mistress and Walden Two but this is an interesting question. How does someone get on the council and what are the qualification ? We have seen that "majority rules" does not always get the right person elected.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's a challenge. I think Heinlein had some ideas on this in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. How do you know that someone is moral and ethical? Maybe there are challenges and qualifying tests. The elders don't serve forever just some defined term. They can be circulated out of the council and back again. Maybe the council is formed by a particular need and the right skills set are picked from a pool of talent... There has to be a way to prevent corruption.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Welcome to the Gulch, Max. If you enjoyed the novels, you will find the non-fiction challenging. MaxCasey wrote: "She didn't ever get much into the executive or legislative too heavily, but based on her penchant for individual rights, one can assume that taxes would be out of the question." In fact Rand was explicit about no taxes and about people paying for government services directly. However, her focus was on more fundamental topics in philosophy because those determine the others. In other words, if you want a good political system, you need a solid epistemology. Cause and effect: the cart cannot come before the horse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago
    JetGraphics is right. Start with America's founding documents. If we in Atlantis can get our society to last for > 200 years like America's founders did, then it will be a new generation's responsibility to amend any problems that popped up in the interim.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Many requests by a citizenry to politicians at any level are quite legitimate requests as well. Balancing these requests against the interests of all citizens is like walking a tight rope.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MaxCasey 11 years, 2 months ago
    Interesting post, because most of the problems you outline are the results of irrational behavior. Why would such irrationality be tolerated or invited into the gulch in the first place? As for the shape of the governing body, Rand has outlined much of a potential working model in her books, and it certainly wasn't based on democracy. Restitution and disputes would be handled by the courts, which would be funded by a fee paid by those engaging in commerce, sort of like an "oh shit" or "just in case" fee. Everything was predicated on a voluntary exchange of values, i.e. lassiez-faire capitalism. She didn't ever get much into the executive or legislative too heavily, but based on her penchant for individual rights, one can assume that taxes would be out of the question. Then of course comes the inevitable question of how to fund the government. Well one could take the approach of "if you use it pay for it", but that doesn't really get too far in reality. We all know that those who don't pay still benefit indirectly. I was fortunate enough to work with an old man a while ago who had a very novel approach to government funding, and it all centered around nationalizing the federal reserve. Stick with me here, its going to get weird for a second. As you all should know by now the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express. Its a private bank that creates Federal Reserve Notes out of thin air and lends them to banks and our government for varying interest rates. For the purposes of this discussion we will focus on the private banks. These smaller private banks then make loans to entrepreneurs without any real risk to their own capital. The entrepreneur takes what is essentially a worthless piece of paper (the check representing money created from thin air) and proceeds to use raw materials to fashion some good, or service, let's say a building (think Roark here). Now that building is sold for a small profit and the loan plus fees and interest is paid back to the lending bank and the original loan is paid back to the Federal Reserve plus interest. The interest and fees paid to the Federal Reserve and Lending Bank are only worth anything because of the builder who created value from raw materials. The loans didn't create value, they were just manufactured from nothing, and until there was a building said to be worth that loan, the loan had no real value. Still with me? Great. So the Federal Reserve and the local lending bank, profit from what? What did they risk? NOTHING! The risk was assumed by the Builder. The Builder created the value. The builder's skill and capability is what gives value to the money. Think about it. So how about instead of the Federal Reserve profiting for doing basically nothing, and instead of the local bank making cash for essentially no risk, we turn around and limit the local lender to receiving a fee commensurate with servicing the loan and that is all, and then the "interest" on the loan from the Federal Reserve is used to fund the functions of government, all the way back down to the local level. Of course we are talking about doing this in the Gulch, and from scratch. I can't say that this F-ed up country we live in could work this way or not, but what a system like this, or similar to this would do, is provide a system of funding for government, that is paid for by productivity, and not by theft. The government would of course be bared from borrowing, and their budgets would be predictable, and their policies would encourage entrepreneurship because their bottom line would be dependent on it.

    I'm sure I'm missing something, but hey, its an idea.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    On second thought, I don't think we would have to worry nearly as much about who would enforce the oath. This community does an extremely thorough job of policing itself on issues of disagreement. If someone were to violate the oath, the ostracism would be insufferable enough that oath violators would beg to leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 11 years, 2 months ago
    DEMOCRAZY - - - OH NO, you don't want a democrazy. Miserable form of government. Nasty.

    DEMOCRAZY - that form of government where the rights of individuals are at the mercy of the majority. Where the majority can vote itself benefits taken from the minority. Inevitably becomes corrupt and is overshadowed by an oligarchy that can manipulate public opinion to distract from the voting fraud. The worst form is a socialist democrazy, where government sponsored slavery and theft are implemented under the guise of compulsory charity. (Slavery : compulsory labor for the benefit of another. Theft : expropriation of property for the benefit of another.) No matter how pitiful or deserving the recipient is, slavery is not an acceptable remedy for the ills of mankind.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Trust me, it's not easy governing even as a libertarian. There are enough moochers and looters asking for favors that it is not easy. Most politicians actually appear honorable before they go to Washington.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Regarding the oath, you expect someone of honor (an expectation of Atlantis citizens) to fulfill any oaths that one takes. In essence, when one violates the oath, he/she would be expected to exile themselves. The hypocrisy one would have to live with would be intolerable. In essence, violation of the oath becomes unforgivable.

    Having an oath enforcement police obviously would make Atlantis statist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 11 years, 2 months ago
    REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government only exercises power by special delegation. Though not the most perfect form, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.
    (promised in Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON)

    GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly..."
    - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

    What to verify to establish evidence that the republican form is still protected by American law:
    __ Private property rights (absolute ownership by individuals)
    __ Natural liberty (sovereign prerogatives of the landlord)
    __ Personal liberty (rights of the freeman upon the public roads and waterways)
    __ Natural rights (which includes those explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence)
    __ Rights and liberties are not subject to taxation, regulation or impairment
    ...
    If one has absolute freedom upon one’s property, and freedom to travel upon the public ways, and government cannot trespass upon your rights and liberties - except by your consent -or- to secure the rights of an injured party, what more do you want?
    ...
    NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123

    NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
    - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

    " Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
    - - - 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 11 years, 2 months ago
    "Maybe the real first step is to form a group of serious members and outline the goals of such a community."

    If you’d like some assistance in visualizing a “revolutionary” form of government, you might start with the Declaration of Independence.

    ...
    READER’S DIGEST OF LAW
    ...
    Law simplified into one sentence:
    "All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

    ★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects private property ownership.
    ★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects natural and personal liberty from trespass.

    Declaration of Independence soundbite:
    => Job #1 = secure rights (endowed by our Creator)
    => Job #2 = govern those who consent
    . . . (Caveat - consent waives job #1)
    => All Americans are created equal before the law - no one has higher status. This is also the source of the Republican form of government.

    GOVERNMENTS : created by compact to secure rights do not have rights - they have delegated powers and bestow privileges and immunities on those who consent.

    ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION :
    => Create a perpetual UNION of member states and their governments
    => Delegate certain powers to the United States, in Congress assembled

    USCON:
    => The United States, in Congress assembled, is reorganized into three branches, allegedly to balance power, but requires the State officers to swear an oath to the supremacy of the U.S. constitution.
    => People have rights and powers (protected by government)
    => Citizens have privileges and immunities (granted by government)

    In other words, the institution of government was to secure rights, via prosecution of deliberate trespass and adjudication of accidental trespass. And govern (i.e., rule, regulate, restrict) only those who consent.
    ★ Anything more is suspect.
    ★ Anything less is unacceptable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The objectives identify possible means. Means need to be evaluated as to consequences, trade-offs, and costs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wow, MikeMarotta and khalling! I knew that there would be people who would disagree with me on the oath issue, but unlike Mike's example about the "sex with your wife the night before" that obviously could not be amended, if I delete my opinion about oath enforcement, can we just agree to disagree? Ouch!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The oath is personal. I don't want an oath police either. This is why I asked about how you do enforce the oath without being burdensome. Governing is hard. I am personally quite conservative, but while I was our Faculty Senate President, I was asked by a colleague about domestic partnership benefits. I found that I had to govern as a libertarian while being personally conservative. Governing is quite hard.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You stand accused of fixing coffee and serving it in bed to Kay Ludlow.
    "Dude, she is my wife."
    Did you have sex the night before?
    "Uh, no..."
    So, it was an altruistic act, not the exchange of value for value?
    "Ummm... thinking... thinking..."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    j,
    there is no enforcement of the oath. who decides who is following/not following? there are objective laws which should be enforced, but the oath is personal. that's how we get 300M people pledging allegiance to a flag at the same time. absurd. federal employees break the oath to the Constitution all the time...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 2 months ago
    CircuitGuy, the following is meant in good-natured jest, not anything inflammatory. Does this mean that your job in Atlantis would be city planner or councilperson? We certainly wouldn't need many such people, but I haven't seen anyone else volunteer for such a role yet. If I earn a vote, you would be worth considering. There would be many people in Atlantis worthy of my consideration for such a role. That is why I am here.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo