SoylentNews

What really do you need a strong government for? If your people can't do most of their own "mediation" due to lak of capability or inclination, then you just don't have the conditions for libertarianism to succeed, left or right leaning.

AC you replied to here.

Exactly. that's most of my point. Unless and until we have a society that will self-regulate to ensure equality and fairness for all its members, we will require strong government (one that reflects the will and values of the majority, with strictures that respect minority groups) and social institutions to create and maintain a society where folks are treated fairly and everyone has equal opportunities to succeed.

What we have now in the US does a poor job at that, but it's been getting better over the history of our nation. It seems we're backsliding a bit, but initiating societal changes that remove what few rusty guardrails we have won't make things better -- rather the opposite IMHO.

My take is that genuine liberty at the individual level requires an expectation at society and government level that the individual will act to protect their freedom. This can't be compensated for with a stronger government because that government will be made of the same sort of people with the same flaws in addition to serious conflicts of interest.

To an extent, yes. The problem comes in where those with more resources have a greater ability to protect their freedom than those with fewer resources. As the old saw goes, "All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others."

This isn't a new concept, nor is it particularly profound. We're not all clones. We have differing levels of ability (with a staggering array of facets to that term), intellect, social and economic resources. In a practical sense, that means we're not all equal. Rather the idea (again, not new or profound) is that, as a society, we should all be treated equally and have equal opportunities. Given the state of our society, the libertarian fantasy would fail to do so. And quite spectacularly, I reckon.

And more's the pity.

==============================

I initially misunderstood your point and wrote the following, which is relevant but not responsive to your comment. I'll leave it here anyway, as it bears on the issues being discussed and is worthy of consideration in that context

That's the premise for the "Worker's Paradise" predicted as the end-stage of Communism. That The People will come together to create a society that doesn't require much government, because everyone will be rational, fair and concerned with protecting the well-being of their fellow citizens.

What gets in the way of such an outcome is human nature. Any community larger than a hand-picked few hundred (and even then it's iffy) will have folks who are unreasonable, irrational, greedy, stupid and/or sociopaths.

It would be absolutely wonderful if we could create societies where everyone respects the rights and humanity of everyone else. A society where the least of us are treated with the same respect and have the same opportunities as the best of us. I would absolutely welcome such a society, as it could make life better for everyone.

Unfortunately, that's not how things really work. There are folks who would sell (or kill/beat/turn out) their own mothers for a nickel. There are folks who are irresponsible/incompetent who could cause the death of hundreds or thousands. There are those who would beat you half to death because they don't like the color of your shoes. Etc., etc., etc.

Because of this, we need strong governmental, political and social institutions to create and maintain (at least) a minimum of fairness and equality among people with varying levels of resources, intellect and ability.

That's certainly not to say that I recommend a Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org] type of society. Rather, I'd recommend a society that values the lives of all its members. One that provides an equal opportunity for folks to succeed.

That we can't even seem to do that gives the lie to the idea that in larger (more than a couple hundred) communities, we have the means, will and institutions to replace governmental roles like dispute resolution, addressing anti-social activities/behavior, helping those who are disadvantaged/unable to help themselves and a raft of other issues with private analogues.

From an aspirational and theoretical standpoint, I'm right there with you khallow.

But from a practical standpoint, it's just wishful thinking. And that's too bad.

Until we have the economic, social and individual structures/ability to treat everyone equally and fairly without needing an authority to enforce and maintain such equality/fairness, having elected representatives in a strong government that creates and maintains such an environment will be necessary.

Hell, we have that now and it barely works. Given the current circumstances, removing the minimal guardrails we have now will certainly make things worse, not better.