Thanks for the link. I think we are both right actually.

When I talk to people about libertarianism, inevitably the first thing that comes up once we get past the preliminaries is fear of a totally privatized society. I myself share that fear, but in a decentralized world, I think the dangers of such an arrangement would be drastically reduced. Regardless, it comes up often.

On the other hand, you are right about the relationship between those with the means to “practice thoroughgoing libertarianism” being unwilling to stress it. In large part these reasons are economic, which is why Rothbard’s “populist” libertarianism is the only strategic model that I think can get us anywhere.

Dylan

I’m not confident that electing police officers would change anything for the better. The record of elected officials of all levels, from sheriff all the way to president, gives little cause for hope. But it’s worth thinking about, at least.

My guess is that libertarianism has not been tried in any systematic fashion not because people are so attached to commons — the attachment is real, but probably not a strong motivation — but because those who have the resources to practice a thoroughgoing libertarianism benefit too much from present arrangements to want to change (or to feel any pressing need to change), while those who might have more desire for a change don’t have the resources to do much of anything.

As for the legal/justice system and libertarian values, it seems to me the first step should be to decentralize power greatly. David Friedman and others have done valuable work on what a utopian anarcho-capitalist system of jurisprudence might look like, and that has its place, but it has no relevance in the here and now. For the time being efforts should be spent trying to curtail federal law enforcement and the militarization of local police forces.

A sensible goal on the municipal level would be the election of police officers by the citizens they patrol. While this concept may be unfavorable to those who fear the infamous “rabble”, it is a populist concept, rooted in conservatism and yes libertarianism. I eventually plan to write at length on this subject, but for the time being it is worth noting that such a proposal would likely lead to a drastic reduction in things like asset forfeiture, and incarceration of non-violent “criminals”. It would also put a stake in the heart of the cash cow that is traffic law, which would essentially be a tax cut, that would slash the jugular of local and state government waste (if you really want to make yourself ill, look at the highway funding and infrastructure costs at the state level sometime. It’s unreal).

The long term goal, might be a Rothbardian system, or it might be a return to citizen militias (something advocated by Alexander Cockburn in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy). Regardless it would be a valuable step in restoring trust within communities, which ultimately is the bedrock of society and law.

However, I don’t know enough about Rothbard to know what a Rothbardian legal system is. What I can say is that the current system has all manner of inefficiencies and petty (and not so petty) injustices. However, I don’t see much point in thinking, talking, or acting to improve upon it in the political sphere. Better to identify the root causes of why libertarian has never been attempted, than try and fix those root causes (the root cause I believe happens to be that the bulk of mankind possesses low cognitive and emotional intelligence and once this is lifted than more of mankind will become inclined toward libertarianism - one reason being that natural biological inequalities will be less of an issue when we can choose our own biological capacities).