the libertarian conundrum

becoming a prisoner of the prisoner's dilemma

this struck me as interesting (and topical)

let me take a stab:

to my mind, the problem angela is seeking to articulate is this:

libertarian systems lead to the highest function, most flourishing forms of human society.

they are incredibly robust, especially from without.

the vulnerability of such systems comes from within.

libertarian systems/rights based republics are very good at fighting an external foe, but once the foe is inside the walls and "a citizen" or even "a resident" they struggle.

this is because such systems are really only suitable for moral, high trust, high function people who can exhibit sufficient time preference and forward planning to pass a marshmallow test and to adhere to a "golden rule" system of doing unto others as one would have done unto them in return.

this is, temporally and globally, very rare, a small exception among a great deal of "rule by force."

the rights, privileges, and presumptions (like innocence) of a republic are all based on the idea that the people in a nation are mostly moral.

when they are not and instead see the morality of others and their respect for rights as "being stupid, gullible, and making them easy to prey upon" the systems rapidly go bad and the "rights" that once underwrote liberty become the defense of oppressors and abusers.

generally, this cannot really get too far out of hand in a true libertarian state as the sorts of low morals low trust low function people who would do such things simply cannot survive in a high function society. they lack the skills, ethic, and planning horizon to compete and stay fed and housed and mostly they know this and so do not come.

what breaks this protective selector is the welfare state. when these low trust low function low ethics people can come and get free stuff that affords them a standard of living far above wherever they came from, they come in droves and they bring their behaviors with them.

when police and court systems refuse to arrest and prosecute them because "structural racism" or some other such memetic surrender, they come in droves and they bring their violence with them.

the very "rights" that make a moral people free make these people unaccountable as they trample them. suddenly the right to a presumption of innocence has become the enemy of the right to property and safety of one's person. the very principles that made a society flourish become the infection pathway for its dissolution once the barbarians are inside the gates.

the delusion of "the world is flat and if they live with us everyone will want to be like us and become like us" is desperately dangerous.

they do not and will not.

they will instead undo civilization.

society scale human flourishing essentially amounts to finding a way for large numbers of people to consistently not defect in an ongoing series of prisoner's dilemmas.

morality is a great strength when you get it back in return. but when you do not, its continued expression essentially makes one a punching bag and and a repeated dupe.

once you inject a large number of people who will turn on you every time, you're cooked and to keep acting like if we just play again they'll learn only makes it worse.

the good news is that shutting it off takes less than one might think.

turn off the free money and turn on enforcement, and you can get very rapid change. it’s sort of stunning how much crime is committed by how few people.

cause:

effect:

this makes this whole line of reasoning a touch ironic.

it blames “libertarianism” for what has mostly been a problem induced by a failure to adhere to libertarian ideas.

there is nothing about a libertarian systems that says “pay bad people to live with you” or that you cannot go to war in defense of rights. one might even say that a true libertarian creed demands war in defense of rights.

i’m sure one could say other things as well, but consider: if one does, will one’s society long persist to say much else?