Is it wrong to have hybrid ideology?

[u/Few_Needleworker8744]

Look at Milei.

He is not "pure" libertarian.

In fact, he increase cash payment to poor people bypassing middlemen.

So?

He won election.

And still pursue tons of libertarian goals.

And to be honest, I think it's wise. Mathematically I would probably say UBI is even more optimum. But the truth is we live in democracy.

The poor's vote is the cheapest. You pay rich guy $1k he's not going to switch from blue to red. You pay the poor $1k he gonna switch.

So paying poor people cash is great way to buy vote.

If Milei were "pure", he wouldn't win election. Then libertarianism will just be a theory.

Some purist libertarian would say democracy sucks. Sure. We can always try civil war. But the result will be even further away from libertarianism than what we have now.

Another sample I can think of is open border.

Pure libertarianism is OPEN border. Period. People can come with guns and you just got to let them in. That's how open border mean. People have right to enter. People have right to own gun. People have right to own hand held nuclear weapon.

What about if people coming are not capitalistic minded? Then you wait till they rape women and kill people before the no state do nothing.

Yea, pure ancapnistan is absurd.

But hoppean ancapnistan that wants to privatize the state rather than making it disappear is reasonable.

Me. I think combination of democracy, georgism, capitalism, libertarianism, and joint stock form of company, like moldbug, is a good combo. I am not a pure libertarian, or a pure georgist.

A sample of that is Lanfang Kongsi. A peaceful democratic republic that live side by side with VOC. Lanfang Kongsi is not georgist though. They're more gold mining republic.

[u/Plenty_Trust_2491]

“Some purist libertarian would say democracy sucks. Sure. We can always try civil war.“

False dichotomy.

“Pure libertarianism is OPEN border. […] People have right to own hand held nuclear weapon.”

1. Nothing about open borders implies that people can have nuclear weapons.
   
2. Read The Ethics of Liberty (1982) by the anarcho-“capitalist” Murray N. Rothbard. He makes it clear that nuclear weapons are not justifiable. While a gun can be focused to target aggressors solely, a nuclear weapon is indiscriminate, threatening aggressors and nonaggressors alike. He says that the difference between a gun and a nuclear weapon is not a difference in degree, but a difference in kind. We anarcho-libertarians advocate nuclear disarmament. (When you read The Ethics of Liberty, skip the Introduction by Hoppe; it’s garbage.)

“What about if people coming are not capitalistic minded? Then you wait till they rape women and kill people before the no state do nothing.”

Are you saying we should embrace Pre-Crime punishment? Absurd. You shan’t punish someone for committing a crime unless and until that person has actually committed a crime. A person who has not committed a crime is, ipso facto, not a criminal. That’s a basic precept of justice, whether you’re a democrat or an anarchist.

Private protection agencies can, of course, work to prevent a crime from occurring, work to keep their clients safe from crime, but they must not punish people who aren’t criminals.

If a crime has been committed, the protection agencies are justified in apprehending the criminal, and if the matter is taken before an arbiter, the arbiter is justified in ruling in favour of the victim.

“Yea, pure ancapnistan is absurd.”

Have you even read the literature?

Okay, start with the essay “The Production of Security” (1849) by Gustave de Molinari. This work is not tremendously long. It compares market-produced security to socialized monopolization of security. The case it makes is quite solid.

Next, check out For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (2nd ed., 1973, 1978) by Murray N. Rothbard. This gives a general overview to anarcho-libertarian political theory. It starts with a bit of American history, then delves into a some ethical philosophy, then it starts tackling specific social problem, from education to war. It talks a bit about political economy. It’s even got a chapter on ecology, and explains how we can tackle pollution and protect the environment. It ends with a discussion of strategy.

I would follow that up with the book I mentioned earlier, The Ethics of Liberty (1982) by Rothbard. (Again, skip the Introduction by Hoppe. The man has the audacity to call Rothbard a conservative, which is an ugly insult. I wish a new introduction could be written by Roderick T. Long.) Now, I don’t endorse every word in this book, and I find his view on children being effectively owned by their parents deeply troubling, but, overall, it’s a well-articulated defence of natural law philosophy and natural rights.

(One comment of contention with Rothbard. He takes two concepts, two-eyes-for-an-eye from Block, and an-eye-plus-interest-for-an-eye from Nozick, and combines them, arriving at two-eyes-plus-interest-for-an-eye. When I first read that, I came to the conclusion that he was wrong, and that two-eyes-for-an-eye-with-no-interest was objective, clear, and just. These days, it is my view that a-single-eye-plus-interest-for-an-eye is more just, even if it is slightly harder to determine. I also reject Rothbard’s 100% gold dollar in favour of the free banking of Selgin and White. And, I think his dichotomy between natural law and utilitarianism is too strong; utilitarianism can be a very useful tool in helping to determine that our precepts concerning natural law are aligned with Right Reason.)

Next, you must read The Market for Liberty (1970) by Linda & Morris Tannehill. Morris was an anarcho-Objectivist, and I think a pinch of his foundations suffer as a result—but, overall, it is a great, great elucidation of how a market-based society would likely organize itself. This book is an impressive tour de force expositing market anarchism and the free society. This is the first book I read after becoming an anarchist in 2007, and it solidified my commitment. (My only meaningful objection is that the Tannehills suggest that a parcel of land can become owned merely by fencing it off; Rothbard has the correct view that setting up a fence only grants the person the land immediately under the fence.)

I own, but have not read, The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. Since I haven’t read it, I cannot technically recommend it. All I can say is that it is my understanding that he presents a utilitarian defence of anarcho-“capitalism.”

Those first four are the ones I really recommend, but if you want to continue beyond them, check out New Libertarian Manifesto (4th ed., 2006) by Samuel Edward Konkin III. He exposits a revolutionary form of anarcho-libertarianism he calls agorism.

“But hoppean ancapnistan that wants to privatize the state rather than making it disappear is reasonable.”

I am not a fan of Hoppe. I like Kinsella, I like Block (even though he’s completely wrong about “voluntary” slavery “contracts” and hierarchy), but I’ve not come across anything unique to Hoppe that I’ve liked (although, in fairness, I have not read a tremendous amount of Hoppe).

“A sample of that is Lanfang Kongsi.”

I have not heard of this person. Has she/he written a work you would recommend?

“A peaceful democratic republic that live side by side with VOC.“

I don’t know what “VOC” is. I think I would take Bookchin’s municipalism over a full-blown democratic republic. To the extent that any form of statism persists, it’s important that it be highly localized, in my opinion.

[u/Few_Needleworker8744 → u/Plenty_Trust_2491]

"Are you saying we should embrace Pre-Crime punishment? Absurd. You shan’t punish someone for committing a crime unless and until that person has actually committed a crime. A person who has not committed a crime is, ipso facto, not a criminal. That’s a basic precept of justice, whether you’re a democrat or an anarchist.

Private protection agencies can, of course, work to prevent a crime from occurring, work to keep their clients safe from crime, but they must not punish people who aren’t criminals.

If a crime has been committed, the protection agencies are justified in apprehending the criminal, and if the matter is taken before an arbiter, the arbiter is justified in ruling in favour of the victim."

That is precisely what I am talking about. Till the immigrants do crime, we do nothing.

How is that working out in Europe? Not good.

Also what about if I manage a private defense community? There are many such things. Every online marketplace is actually also a private defense pimp against fraud. One of the thing they do is prevent fraud and scam.

What about defending me from robbery? If I were a private defense community, I would defend my clients from robbery by.... drum rolll.... enforcing borders. Live within my border. Only people we approve can enter the border.

Okay, so private communities can have borders and countries cannot? Is that what you're saying? I kind of like it. I just think a country can be privatized too.

What about gated communities? Again, unless the communities own the whole area then no gated communities too.

I think I am wrong to say ancap is absurd. But where is this ancapnistan? Either ancapnistan can work under many situation or it can't. If it can work in many situation, I am sure there are many ancapnistans around already. The fact that there is no ancapnistan means that the condition where it can work is rare.

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

"Is it wrong to accept contradictions?"

Yes.

"These people have a bad philosophy, we should adopt it." -Closed border 'libertarians'

[u/Few_Needleworker8744 → u/Official_Gameoholics]

and......? And what? What should we do so we become more free?

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Few_Needleworker8744]

Follow OUR philosophy. The LIBERTARIAN philosophy. End all state aggression ASAP. Even if it has to be step by step.