The editor of a libertarian website, Bionic Mosquito, recently posted this article. I have never heard of anything like this in my life.
[Update: that is because it was 100% fiction. The guy has come clean:
He can write anything from now on. I will never trust his site again. This kind of stunt is irreparable. The man has no ethics. He has rotten judgment. He has shot himself in a more delicate place than his foot.
As Leonard Read used to say, "He is in the past tense."
I should have known it was fake, as the rest of my response discusses. It was too good to be true. -- Noon, July 6.]
For the record, the phrase NAP refers to the libertarian standard of ethics: non-aggression principle. This is an extension of the fundamental libertarian principle: self-ownership.
I live in a neighborhood of about 40 homes. Other than these neighbors, we are pretty isolated. Most of the families have been here for years, some for generations. We all speak pretty openly about all kinds of things: war, politics, the government. Fortunately for me, for the most part they hold similar views to mine. Stunning, I know. I call it heaven on earth!As I mentioned, we are pretty isolated – a few miles down the road is a service station with a small convenience store. If one really wants to stock up, he has to go to the county seat of the next county – about 55 miles each way. No one goes in more than once a month; if anyone has an urgent need, they just check around – someone is bound to be going within the next day or so.
Being isolated, we have to fend for ourselves. Everyone learns to handle firearms at an early age. If you want to live here, you have to be able to contribute to the protection and safety of the group. It also helps to deal with the occasional wild animal…most four-legged.
Many of the residents read Lew Rockwell; a few support the Mises Institute. Some prefer Cato or FEE – we tease them often for their milquetoast ways, but we accept them anyway. Generally speaking, we see eye to eye on the general direction of things. A few are a bit more nationalistic, but we get along OK with them because they really hate the foreign intervention stuff. This is enough for most of us.
We all meet once a month just to talk about such things…and drink a few beers…and later some Jack and Coke… you get the idea. While we offer help whenever anyone is in need, we also know when to stay out of other people’s business.
In those rough edges of the NAP, the spaces in between – where the lines aren’t so clear or the infractions could be considered de minimis – we have figured out what works for us and pretty much everyone just decides it is better to go along with the program. Sure, it isn’t pure, but for living in this world it is about as NAP as one can hope to get.
We have what you might call a court (we call it The Hall of the Elders – kind of pretentious, I know; but that’s what it is) for those issues that for some reason can’t get resolved amongst and between the effected parties. It is made up of three people from the ten families that have been here the longest – families in terms of generations, not in terms of current residency.
This system ensures we have some continuity in law (not really law, but I am at a loss to find a term that works in this world). We rotate the three every year, by drawing lots amongst the eldest male member from each of the next seven families. I know the word “male” hurts some of you snowflakes out there…that’s your problem, not ours.
We don’t write many rules down – we have found that the more delineated the rules (e.g. like in a Constitution or some kind of Great Charter of the Liberties) the more likely someone will try to weasel his way around these. It has happened too often in history (like every time) to believe otherwise.
It's amazing that 40 families can live like this. I recognize that we've heard about these stories of some hoped-for libertarian community, or least I have, for well over 40 years, but I have never heard of an operational community that has been able to put this together.
The utterly astounding thing is this: several of the families have been there for more than one generation. Yet they seemingly have the same ideology. I have no idea where this is located. It certainly deserves a documentary. But if they are smart, they will never participate in such a project. This sounds like Dagny Taggart's community hidden in Colorado, except that nobody has a lot of money.
The rest of the article is equally interesting. He describes a family that just moved in. Within one day, there was an argument. The new family is intensely libertarian. The members hate smoke. So, they are outraged about the barbecues and the smoke.
A philosophical dispute has arisen. They claim that smoke is physically invasive. Therefore, it is a violation of the non-aggression principle. The editor agrees. He says that the others claim that it is a long-term practice, to be recognized as legitimate. The editor says that principle is also true.
The newcomers may go to court. If they do, the good old boys on the jury are going to vote in favor of the good old boys with the barbecues pits.
The newcomers have already alienated their neighbors, and unless they change, they're going to be unhappy permanently. In other words, they act like typical libertarians. That's why I'm so amazed about the existence of the community. Apparently, they have gotten along together for decades.
The intense individualism of libertarians makes it very difficult for them to establish community. Community is based on give and take. There is no question that the newcomers are right about the nonaggression principle. But, in terms of conservative ethics, the existing community is correct. The tradition has developed for years. It is basically the life of the community. It is probably basic to the life of the county.
The editor does not say how he thinks this can be resolved or should be resolved. He understands that the community is now on the horns of an ideological dilemma. How far are they willing to take the principle of non-aggression?
That is always the question. Every constitutional system ends up in disputes like these. How this community avoided the disputes for years is beyond me. It is certainly unique in libertarian history.
This is the ultimate problem of all political systems. At some point, somebody says: "You are not going to do that anymore." The other guy says: "Oh, yeah?" The United States seceded on that basis in 1776. The South attempted to secede in 1861. There are times when I think the most important principle of understanding American politics is this: "You won't!" "Oh, yeah?" A variation: "Says who?" This moves to the next step: "You and who else?" This escalation is crucial to the understanding of political theory and political philosophy in general. I realize that political theory tends to be as arcane as all the other academic disciplines, but this is the best summary of political theory.
Political science is the study of how people use collective coercion to get this issue settled. Supposedly, there is science involved. To which I answer: "Oh, yeah?"
__________________________________________________
In case you were wondering about the libertarian principle that ought to be respected here, there is a clear-cut libertarian principle that deals with this dispute. It is one which honors principle of non-aggression. It also honors the principle of property rights.
Give this some thought. Can you figure it out?
I will give you a hint: the solution is in two words.
I will be really gracious: one of the words is "pollution."
You can find out the answer here: https://www.garynorth.com/members/16844.cfm
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.