…older Russians who are afraid of their future well-being given they were deprived of the ability to create self-suffciency earlier in life, thanks to the authortarian government and its welfare state (hardly “communism”, of course). Their flaw however, is that they fail to realize that the “welfare” provided could not be sustained.

Not if state funds were plundered by the oligarchs. Which they were. The transition to more “free market” didn’t have to be as disastrous as it was. The fact that the “welfare” could not be “sustained” was not so much because of communism per se, it was because of huge foreign debt.

As you may know, when the Soviet empire decided to expand economically and militarily, it was a feudal society far behind industrially to Western Europe and the US. London bankers, a.o. the Rothschild dynasty funded the Bolsheviks as they saw their industrial ambition and the potential to build up a debtor nation of hard working serfs.

As such there isn’t much of a difference between the US or the USSR when it comes to a collapse due to (foreign) debt. I agree that the market is to be much preferred in many economic sectors. Gorbachev was already working on that in the 1980s because the plan economy is largely a big mistake. But there’s a lot between that and “pure” capitalism.

Such a gang is better known as a “government”. Most countries have such things as we speak.

Exactly. What I don’t like about some libertarians is the way they present “the state” as an instrument of the masses to “extort” the “5% of the population that’s doing all the work” (I’m not kidding you, one libertarian told me so).
A bit of history tells us that the state was erected to protect the wealthy from the have-nots. Not the other way around. “The people” (whatever that may be) have stood up to their rights and made democratic victories. Apparently it was harder to abolish the state altogether than to reform it democratically. Libertarians have to face that fact. Instead, they largely prefer to ignore it.

So how do we avoid the (re)creation of these? By watching out for the early stages of their formation and responding vigorously (and violently, if needed) when they begin coercing others.

And do that without a kind of organisation called “government”? I’d hope it could be done, but I have my doubt.

The hard part is recognizing this and convincing enough others that the coercion is beginning; once that has been accomplished, there will be plenty of folks willing to apply resources to stopping them — even if they are not immediately affected — as a matter of clear self interest.

Self-interest as a motivation doesn’t work that well if you’re only affected in the long term. That’s the problem with us humans, we can hardly see beyond a decade ahead of us. But I’d say, buy an island somewhere, build your own libertarian society and I really hope it succeeds. Then set that as an example to the rest of us.

Until a gang of thugs comes up and establishes its monopoly on violence and capital, just like in any corporatist state.

Such a gang is better known as a “government”. Most countries have such things as we speak. So how do we avoid the (re)creation of these? By watching out for the early stages of their formation and responding vigorously (and violently, if needed) when they begin coercing others. The hard part is recognizing this and convincing enough others that the coercion is beginning; once that has been accomplished, there will be plenty of folks willing to apply resources to stopping them — even if they are not immediately affected — as a matter of clear self interest.

Then why have most Russians, for two decades now, thought that life was better under communism? This shows in every poll.

I am aware of such polls in the last 5-7 years, but not for two decades; I will provisionally accept this however.

This stems from two groups, I would say, the first being older Russians who are afraid of their future well-being given they were deprived of the ability to create self-suffciency earlier in life, thanks to the authortarian government and its welfare state (hardly “communism”, of course). Their flaw however, is that they fail to realize that the “welfare” provided could not be sustained.

The second group are those affected by the US government “advisers” that moved in quickly after the Soviet Union’s collapse under the guise of helping them set up a free capitalist state, and instead worked to create a strong central government (the US government prefers strong central governments so it doesn’t have to deal with individuals) that had degenerated into a de facto oligarchical authoritarian government.

Then tell Cato to stop listing the US as anything of a good example, as they’re doing now.

I do not support Cato, and I have expressed disagreements to a couple of their analysts in the past. That being said, it is important to realize that Cato’s primary audience is US federal government and associated policymakers. One of their tactics is to praise cases of relatively pro-freedom behavior in the hope of fostering further progress — much as someone might praise a 4 year old “blob with four legs” as a nice picture of a “doggie”. Personally, I think that Cato concentrates too much on the short term to the detriment of long term pursuit of a truly libertarian society.

In an earlier message I noted that almost any “group of libertarians talking, and one will find vast differences in views as to the nature of underpinnings, degree, and methods in which a libertarian society should have.” This is an example of those differences.

Fifth, libertarians do not claim that a libertarian society would be perfect; just freer, more open, and diverse, better scaling, more agile, and with less overhead than any known society under government control.

Until a gang of thugs comes up and establishes its monopoly on violence and capital, just like in any corporatist state.

As an aside, marxism/communism do work — but only for very small groups, such as families. Their fundamental failure is that they do not scale.

Then why have most Russians, for two decades now, thought that life was better under communism? This shows in every poll.
Marxism btw is an economic analysis, still seems to be quite valid these days, in the US for instance.
Also, Cuba did a lot better in Katrina than the US “free market” paradise. Cuba even survived its “Special Period”, a major oil crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now you’ll tell me that the US isn’t libertarian enough yet, which explains its “shortcomings”, like so many libertarians do? Then tell Cato to stop listing the US as anything of a good example, as they’re doing now.

There are obviously benevolent, sincere libertarians. But beware of that libertarianism which is nothing more than pure greed disguised as a vital “ideology”.

First libertarianism is indeed selfish in the sense that no one must help anyone else. This is the proper position, since neither helping nor harming is ethically neutral; choosing to help (assuming the ones being helped agree) is “good”; coercing some form of help saps it of any “goodness”. It also reduces the types of help available, since it directs resources in only a few avenues and saps those resources which might otherwise be used to help others in different manners. It is far more selfish, in the negative sense, to force others to help in ways that the one apply force unilaterally thinks best.

Second, Hong Kong was successful, not because it was “rich”; rather it became “rich” because it wasfree. Compare Hong Kong to other port cities that did not have such freedom.

Third, Sweden, although its markets are freer than that in many other countries, does not truly have a “free market”. One needs a license (permission from government) to start a business, the government takes for itself unilateral control of some markets (such as health care), and taxes sap the means of providing products and services at competitive rates (vs. other marketplaces in the world).

Fourth, rules do not need a central authority to either be created or to be followed. Those with utility are followed by convention, not by external enforcement by a central authority. Disputes can be resolved privately, as they were with the genesis of “common law” and juries, without the imprimatur of some “government” (although such governments, typically in the form of a monarch, have always been happy to grant and extend the use of common law — much as Microsoft uses “embrace and extend”).

Fifth, libertarians do not claim that a libertarian society would be perfect; just freer, more open, and diverse, better scaling, more agile, and with less overhead than any known society under government control. As an aside, marxism/communism do work — but only for very small groups, such as families. Their fundamental failure is that they do not scale.

Finally, I must laugh at the notion that libertarianism is “cult like”. Listen to group of libertarians talking, and one will find vast differences in views as to the nature of underpinnings, degree, and methods in which a libertarian society should have. It is far more like a group of scientists discussing the best theory or model to use to describe reality. In contrast, nearly every non-libertarian I have encountered has always and steadfastly assumed the need for an omnipotent state, much as creationists assume the need for an omnipotent deity. Trying to question that fundamental assumption in both cases is almost inevitable futile.

No, if a theory doesn’t work in practice, there is obviously something wrong with that theory. Marxism doesn’t work, all of the socialist states have imploded, perform poorly or have partly adopted market mechanisms. Ludwig von Mises showed us why: because of a lack of private property there is not enough information, there are no market prices. This way it is impossible for central planners to allocate resources rationally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_debate)

There are other problems with Marxist dogma: labor theory of value and exploitation, class theory, …

I notice that the libertarians on blog.mises.org blame the current subprime crisis on creeping “statism”, or the US government’s propping-up of the corporations through taxpayer money, and they’re criticizing the bailout as being a gradual statist plot to entrench the government in private economic affairs. Meanwhile, the trotskyists at wsws.org are blaming the crisis on “corporatism”, or the US government’s alignment of interest with the corporations, and they’re criticizing the bailout plan as being a corporatist plot to continue the entrenchment of the corporate supremacy in US life.

I can’t say that I blame either side of the debate, but I think that those who blame the government are at about as much of a loss of the plot as are those who blame the corporations.

Both institutional forms have a “screw-’em-unless-we-need-’em” attitude toward each other, kinda like how you have many big-money libertarians (Richard Branson in the UK, for example) who own multinational corporations and could care less for government restriction or intervention (”we can take regulate ourselves, thank you very much!”) unless, say, it came down to a BitTorrent tracker like The Pirate Bay or OINK (hence, the MPAA and the Wikileaks shutdown controversy), or how you have the governments who could care less for the operation of business corporations unless they need someone who can fund their arms and prison habit (hence, the well-known “military-industrial complex”). If one of them is lacking in money or property, then they’ll make an overture to inject themselves in each others’ affairs to benefit themselves (which can range from privatization to nationalization).

So neither libertarianism, which sounds fluffy with its talk of personal liberties, nor socialism, which sounds fluffy with its talk of equal rights, work in their entirety, or at least bring their ideological promises to fruition without some serious repercussions for the citizen public and the citizen individual.

I find it interesting, though, that while the socialists and mutualists can view free software (FSF) and free data (Wikipedia) in a favorable but government-oriented light, the libertarians can be seriously divided in their own perceptions towards free software, with the “let the market decide” libertarians being pitted against the “information should be free” libertarians.

In fact, I don’t view the latter type of libertarians as typical libertarians, but as left-libertarians, pirates, anarchists and hacktivists who have an unfavorable view against both corporations and governments overall, and who could care less if the software or data that they’ve made is to be used freely by such corporations or governments.

I think I favor the anarchists more than the libertarians, but I think that the libertarians in the US, as corporately-beneficiary as they may be, are the only ones in high places who could be persuaded by those who’re further along the anti-authoritarian ideological spectrum towards the decriminalization of drug possession, prostitution, same-sex marriage, and other things which are already taken for granted in your own country, the Netherlands.

You should note that such an approach forms the foundation for a strictly deontological kind of libertarianism, with the only consistent conclusion being anarchism, the abolition of the State. There are also the minarchist type of libertarians, most of the time they Randians or consequentialists.

You should also know that most of “us” libertarians are principled adherents of the Austrian School of economics, hence austrolibertarianism, which states that all government intervention in the economy has repercussions and eventually makes us being worse off than before.

If you would like to read more about the Austrian School, you could start with “Economics for Real People” (Gene Callahan, http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf) which is actually a very pleasant book to read.

If you have bo regulations for the economy, it means that the biggest ecomic powers will grasp and hold the power, without no regulations guarding their actions.

Do we really want to live in a dystopia controlled by greedy corporations? Rather than let democratically elected governments guard their actions?