Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[Illuminatus Primus]

So at our university's philosophy club, it's philosophy of government month. Unfortunately, this means the local libertarians/anarchists have succeeded in hijacking every discussion into "is hardcore libertarianism right?". As in zero government, with private corporations doing all the work (even the military, etc). Due to their debating tactics, I can't think of any good counter-argument to them. There are two main problems:

1) They reject all historical examples of the abuses of capitalism and its failures to provide for the less-fortunate as "not a true capitalist society". Textbook fallacy, but they're able to point to some minor interference/assistance of government and keep bringing it up.

2) They reject all government, especially taxation, as immoral coercion as a fundamental principle. Any discussion of government filling some role is immediately hijacked with "the state is wrong". Their logic:

* Individuals do not have the right to take property from/kill/imprison/etc other people. In their terms, "you are never allowed to initiate force."

* A representative government's powers are supposedly granted by the people, allowing it to act on their behalf.

* You can't grant a right you don't have.

* Therefore the government's powers are all illegitimate, and government is just another band of criminals stealing your hard-earned money.

While most people would agree that government is justified, maybe as a necessary evil, to provide for the good of society as a whole, I'm having trouble coming up with a convincing justification of this. Is there any way to argue this in their system of morality, or is it just a case of a fundamental difference in systems that we'll never agree on?

Accuse them of being like Marxists and point out how their utopianism is no more realistic and tactics of defending it no more legitimate or original than those of hardcore Marxists. If no such society has ever existed, even in the proximate sense, is it even a useful concept? If it cannot survive in a world of states or any foreseeable world descending from one of states, how can it be called something that ought to be? And if it can't, why bother discussing it? No more real or useful or not-laughable than Jesus come to Earth, etc.

[Covenant]

I'm surprised nobody has attacked the underlying principles of libertarianism yet.

Mainly that if you can't afford it, you're fucked. Covenant kind of touched on this, but the problem is much more severe than no money no security. More likely it will be no influence not top 0.00...001% of the people in the world no security at all, or you have to be one of their peons or slaves.

Can anybody on this board afford a private security guard on call 24/7 right now? Police constables are generally the highest paid public servants. Of course, the rebuttal will be subscriber's fees. You pay let's say thirty bucks a month, and get a police officer on call. But how many people can afford that? Think of the average debt load of an American. Average Americans cannot afford the lifestyle they have right now! And what's to stop security contractors from leaving (this being a free market) and working only for whoever paid the most? Oops, the rich gangbangers and Donald Trump owns every single security guard in existence and they are beholden to him. Regulations to stop this? Rule of Law to stop the invisible hand of the free market? How? People will always quit their jobs and go to whoever pays more. The only counter is surprise, a public police force.

The consequence of course, is just like for private healthcare, that millions of Americans would no longer have policing at all. Crime would be rampant. No matter how you attack the economic or efficiency of private versus public, liberals should never concede that insuring a minority is better than insuring all since it's a huge concession to make in the first place.

The worst part is that a lot of the people who this would effect are already paying so very little in tax revenue that it's irrelevent. Since they have no cash to pay, they don't pay any tax money. They have access to a good public school system to help uplift them, but in a Rapture-ready city run by Andrew Rand, there's not going to be any free public education, so the poor get stuck as a permanent underclass unless they can get lucky or work above their station for the slave wages their Gospel-of-Wealth humming bosses pay.

Which basically means that if you're poor, you get less education and less infrastructure and less security. At which point the 'police' force evaporates and the poor, uneducated communities become completely lawless pockets of burned-out Urban decay.

At which point you probably need to join some variety of a volunteer security force, a neighborhood watch so to speak, to make sure that you and your people aren't abused by the other poor, uneducated, unprotected wageslaves of a liberated society. Otherwise known as a fucking street gang.

[Kanastrous]

Which basically means that if you're poor, you get less education and less infrastructure and less security. At which point the 'police' force evaporates and the poor, uneducated communities become completely lawless pockets of burned-out Urban decay.

And since our present system is doing a decent job of delivering that already, adopting Libertarianism seems kind of superfluous.

[Starglider]

At which point the 'police' force evaporates and the poor, uneducated communities become completely lawless pockets of burned-out Urban decay.

Fear not! OmniConsumerProducts will move in and turn these urban wastelands into cost-efficient production facilities. Don't think 'criminal scum'. Think 'untapped reservoirs of zero-cost labour'. After all of these subhumans committed such unforgivably sins as stealing other people's property to feed their starving families. OCP's mandatory re-education programs will make them into productive members of society.

Too little government has the same end result as too little government, totalitarianism, it just takes longer and is even more destructive.

[Junghalli]

The standard Libertarian answer is 'gold backed currencies are the only true currency'!

Daniel DeFoe already laid a pretty good smackdown on that idiocy several centuries ago in Robison Crusoe with Crusoe's "oh drug, what good art thou?" passage upon finding a bunch of gold on his wrecked ship. Seriously, if you really get down to it gold's value is no less imaginary than paper money's. It's not actually very useful; you can't eat it, it makes poor tools, the only reason we value it so much is basically that primitive humans liked shiny stuff that didn't tarnish. If you wanted a "true" commodity currency something like iron or tea (like the ancient Chinese sometimes used) would make much more sense, since it would actually have a value beyond being rare and shiny.

[Junghalli]

Accuse them of being like Marxists and point out how their utopianism is no more realistic and tactics of defending it no more legitimate or original than those of hardcore Marxists.

The irony is the supposed end-state of Communism is precisely the ultra-libertarian no government wet dream. The state is supposed to wither away.

Marxism and ultra-libertarianism also both fail for the same reason. They could work in theory, but only with a species much more cooperative and intelligent than humans actually are.

[Starglider]

Too little government has the same end result as too little government, totalitarianism, it just takes longer and is even more destructive.

Gah, 'too much government has the same end result as too much government' even. Unless you get exceptionally lucky and some visionaries form a democratic moderate government out of the anarchy before gangs get entrenched and instituitionalised into feuding nobility (optionally with a corporate veneer). But that's hardly going to happen in one of these libertopia fantasy scenarios in which the whole population willingly dismantles their government and privatises all their public services - it'll take a good crushing under the totalitarian boot before they all wake up and realise what happened.

As numerous posters have already pointed out 'libertarian' anarchism is as incompatible with human nature as a communist utopia, and the practical results are even worse, since communism just makes everyone poor and forced to buy the same state products, whereas anarchy gives you a very good chance of being dead on top of probably being poor.

[Kanastrous]

If you wanted a "true" commodity currency something like iron or tea (like the ancient Chinese sometimes used) would make much more sense, since it would actually have a value beyond being rare and shiny.

In a technological society gold does have valuable practical applications beyond being rare and shiny...

[brianeyci]

At which point the 'police' force evaporates and the poor, uneducated communities become completely lawless pockets of burned-out Urban decay.

Libertarians would say this is what stupid people have coming to them, or counter by saying they want rule of law.

To debate libertarians you have to fight dirty. Bring up single mom with three kids who can't afford private security. Keep hammering this point over and over, and eventually he'll show his colors: either implicit in his argument that poor people suffer if they can't pay, or he hasn't thought clearly enough about the consequences. Libertarians are either stupid or callous, and I have sympathy for the former but none for the latter. If he makes an exception for single mom for three kids, bring up hardworking GM dad. Etc. You can go on forever with the exceptions, until he finally concedes that all people require a police force regardless of cost.

If he is callous you can expose him for an unsympathetic asshole.

Otherwise known as a fucking street gang.

They will either say, this is what they wanted so it is not a valid rebuttal, or say gangs are against the rule of law. At which point you ask them what is the alternative for people who can't pay, and if they say a public police force or even allude to one accuse them of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Preferably mention orphans, single moms, hardworking dads, blue collar who can't afford private security right now so what makes him think they can under a new system, etc.

They will likely counter with examples of healthcare in the US being forced to provide minimal care. Then attack their premise why poor people deserve minimal policing. Etc.

[Covenant]

At which point the 'police' force evaporates and the poor, uneducated communities become completely lawless pockets of burned-out Urban decay.

Fear not! OmniConsumerProducts will move in and turn these urban wastelands into cost-efficient production facilities. Don't think 'criminal scum'. Think 'untapped reservoirs of zero-cost labour'. After all of these subhumans committed such unforgivably sins as stealing other people's property to feed their starving families. OCP's mandatory re-education programs will make them into productive members of society.

Or at least productive. What's that, subhuman? Unable to cope in a society that forces you to stand on your own two feet? Pidgeons eating all your breadcrumbs? Fret not--you do have something worth money. Yourself!

I'm John Swift for OCP Unlimted, and I have a modest proposal for you.

You, yes even you are worth something in the Great Chain. Your body is a virtural stockpile of valuable treasure, and the assets you consume are the taxes that your body, the last Taskmaster of humanity, charges you. Here at OCP Unlimited, we know how this last tax can strain families and communities to the breaking point. Do your duty, donate yourself, and give your family the sweat of yor brow for one last time. Just think, when your family finally moves into that new house and your children are attending the finest schools money can buy, they'll think back and say, "Dad really was worth something. His weight in gold."

OCP Unlimited Industries, putting you on your dinnertable.

[Covenant]

Well, a street gang needn't be illegal. It could be a legal civil protection racket, like a posse. The problem is that the legality is all fucked up because there's no over-arching law. Yeah yeah, I know, Libertarians like the rule of law too. But if it costs cash to bring things to trial, and retaining legal services cost money, who is paying for it from the Burnt Out Urban Poor community? Essentially you get cut-rate judges as well as law enforcement, which means cut-rate law.

Plus, imagine the fucking NIGHTMARES this would cause for Copyright. I mean, shit, we don't live in a pure plutocracy yet, but imagine the absolute insanity that would stem from a purely Libertarian interpertation of copyright and patent laws. We already had that discussion about DRM not too long ago. I imagine that copyright would be pretty goddamn insane in Libertopia.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I imagine that copyright would be pretty goddamn insane in Libertopia.

It's insane NOW, a lifetime (As in everyone who is in the credits has to die) and seven years is crazy.

[Ender]

I don't expect this nitwit to return, he'll probably just fuck off to the rest of his buddies and they will sit around college and circle-jerk about how they are right and we are wrong.

By the way fucker, I hope you are not going to a state school, or making use of any tuition assistance or scholarships. That would be contrary to your little creed. As would having your parents pay for it, you are over 18 and thus an independent adult, I hope you are paying your own way because if they are kicking in some then you are infringing on their property.


But incase I'm wrong about you fleeing...

Ok, some great points folks, keep it coming.

First of all.

Can we let the Katrina shit rest? Katrina is an example of a breakdown in civil government causing chaos and misery. I have cited a specific and driectly analogous counter-example that I experienced first hand, where a similar breakdown in civil government had no such effect. Katrina doesn't refute me. Fran doesn't refute you. These are just two potentially instructive historical examples.

Fuck you, no.

Katrina is exactly the ideal of your scenario. The chaos and looting was relatively brief. After that people who had medicine/food/water/guns went around and traded their goods and services for what they did not have. And what was then end result? Hell on Earth, to the point where the military had to deploy to sort it out.

Fran is not an example of anarchy/libertarianism. Rural decentralisation saw too it that everyone had what most of what they needed, and the community "banded together" - your words- to provide goods and services that each other lacked. That is charity, not the free-market.


You can't answer for this or Toronto, and you admitted your own anecdote was not particularly relevant, but now you just try and dismiss it out of hand. Not gonna fly. Either explain how the trade system that developed in the aftermath of Katrina was not in accordance with libertarian beliefs, or explain how what happened at Katrina was a good thing.

Do try to avoid bluffing or lying, a number of posters on this board and in this thread were there and will not hesitate to call you out.

[Wyrm]

How does utilitarianism separate man from his conduct, and how is it false?

Because it presupposes from the start that 'the greatest good for all' (or, in hedonistic strains, 'the greatest pleasure for all') is distinct from force, obtainable without the use of force, and that pain and pleasure, good and bad, and 'harmful' and 'helpful' are fundamentally opposed dualisms. The objections to it are manifold:

* There is no universal writ commanding that the individual act in the greatest interest of all; therefore utilitarian morality is rightly described as an 'ethics';

There's no universal writ because there's no need for it. Utilitiarianism is based on taking actions that maximize your utility (or put another way, minimize your loss/harm) and as such it's simply decision theory applied to morality and ethics. It is against your interests to harm society because you live in the society. The society's harm eventually becomes your harm. To take an action that overall hurtful to society may lead to temporary gain, but society's going to have a dim view of you, and others may decide that you're more trouble than you're worth. That dim view of you has negative utility, and must be factored into any decision you make.

* 'Good' is innately subjective and interwound with what is 'bad'. For a sociopath, brutalizing another individual becomes 'good'; in a society of sociopaths, inflicting harm upon others quite literally becomes good under utilitarianism;

Inflicting harm on individuals decreases their ability to function in a society. This causes harm to the society and decreses its ability to cope with adversity (a bad season where everyone needs to work on the crops, for instance). If the society is harmed, the sociopaths are eventually harmed. The action of brutalizing others is still overall negative utility for you, and disallowed if you really follow utilitarianism even if you are a sociopath.

* Because it presupposes that the interest of the individual is inevitably the same as the interest of the commons. This is quite demonstratably false; there are many instances wherein an individual is required to do harm to the majority to ensure his own safety and security (e.g. in a democracy which ensures the safety and satisfaction of the minority, i.e. civil rights);

First off, why is civil rights harmful to the majority because it protects the minority? Civil rights states that we all have the same rights no matter who you are. And what harm are we doing to the majority to protect the minority? The ability to kick the minority around? I think that protecting the minority from the arbitrary brutality of the majority is worth the sacrifice of the majority's kicking the minority around for shits and giggles.

Secondly, yes, although you can temporarily advance your lot by causing harm to the commons, remember that your life is a continuing game with the commons; if you harm the commons for your own gain, what do you think the commons is going to do when you next really need its help?

* It presupposes the freedom of the will on the part of the individual to act in the interest of the commons.

Someone who conducts himself according to the dictates of utilitarianism will freely make such decisions, because their interests and that of the commons coincide. You want safety nets, in case you need them yourself. You want equal protections, in case you find yourself in the minority. You want justice, in case others cause you harm. You want to avoid harming your society, in case you need that society's help.

And another thing:

You are a fucking moron. If there was 'no difference' the other primates would a) be flying jet aircraft and b) not be living on a few protected preserves, still threatened by extinction by just a few poachers and farmers.

So you mean to deny that man is an animal? Alright.

Pure strawmannery. Man is special because he is an animal with sentience, and sentience is a tremendous advantage, but he's still an animal.

[Ender]

If you wanted a "true" commodity currency something like iron or tea (like the ancient Chinese sometimes used) would make much more sense, since it would actually have a value beyond being rare and shiny.

In a technological society gold does have valuable practical applications beyond being rare and shiny...

Not really, only that it doesn't corrode much. It's electrical properties are surpassed by other more common materials and it's shielding, while outstanding, is negated by it's weight. A composite shield will provide better protection for equal weight.


That said, I hope Ron Paul wins and puts the USA back on the gold standard. I'm heavily invested in foreign markets so I'm currently seeing double win - I get money from the stocks doing well, and make more money from the dollar depreciating. The resulting bonus from the dollar tanking to the value of an ounce of gold would make me a fucking mint.

Yes, that latter part is a joke, I know it would trash the world economy and make my foreign stocks drop.

[Starglider]

Plus, imagine the fucking NIGHTMARES this would cause for Copyright. I mean, shit, we don't live in a pure plutocracy yet, but imagine the absolute insanity that would stem from a purely Libertarian interpertation of copyright and patent laws. We already had that discussion about DRM not too long ago. I imagine that copyright would be pretty goddamn insane in Libertopia.

A fair fraction of Libertarians (extreme and otherwise) don't actually recognise the validity of intellectual property, and thus would say that there would be free reproduction of everything and creation of IP would be funded by other means. Some of the minarchists, as opposed to market-anarchists (or market fundamentalists as I prefer to call them) are actually opposed to DRM on principle.

Of course all of this is irrelevant to what would happen in practice, which is that both extensive DRM and omnipresent surveillence would be put in place and there would be nothing most people could do about it. The only difference is that surveillance data is being sold by the camera owners to whoever can pay for it, as opposed to being made available to select government employees only.

[Rye]

How does utilitarianism separate man from his conduct, and how is it false?

Because it presupposes from the start that 'the greatest good for all' (or, in hedonistic strains, 'the greatest pleasure for all') is distinct from force, obtainable without the use of force, and that pain and pleasure, good and bad, and 'harmful' and 'helpful' are fundamentally opposed dualisms. The objections to it are manifold:

* There is no universal writ commanding that the individual act in the greatest interest of all; therefore utilitarian morality is rightly described as an 'ethics';

What do you think morality is for, precisely? Why or if you prefer, how does it exist, how did it come about?

* 'Good' is innately subjective and interwound with what is 'bad'. For a sociopath, brutalizing another individual becomes 'good'; in a society of sociopaths, inflicting harm upon others quite literally becomes good under utilitarianism;

If that were the case, sociopathic societies ought to do better in every measurable way by hedonic calculi, but this is not the case. As it happens, secular pluralist societies that protect the largest number of persons from such sadism increase the genepool (this ties in to why/how morality exists) and the "subjective" good experiences, which I would put forth as being pretty much universal anyway. If good (pleasurable) experience is so subjective (rather than a staggeringly more likely situation where most people avoid pain, pursue pleasure and seek out social interaction for evolutionary reasons), why and how did it evolve?

Also no, it would not become "good" if less harm could be inflicted upon the world by abstinence from action. The numbers simply would not add up. The problem is you are confusing the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of harm as inherently equivalent and opposite aspects of a duality. This doesn't have to be the case, and ought not to be if as per what we know of the evolution of morality and human society; i.e. the least harm principle to ensure group survival and interaction. Merely being in a society of sadists doesn't automatically making being a sadist the most utilitarian course of action. Not killing more sadists than you have to in order to survive probably would, because that's the least harm you can reasonably be expected to do in order to survive and make things more ethical.

* Because it presupposes that the interest of the individual is inevitably the same as the interest of the commons. This is quite demonstratably false; there are many instances wherein an individual is required to do harm to the majority to ensure his own safety and security (e.g. in a democracy which ensures the safety and satisfaction of the minority, i.e. civil rights);

I don't see how harm is being done to those wishing to kill minorities by protecting minorities.

* It presupposes the freedom of the will on the part of the individual to act in the interest of the commons.

It presupposes that people can act morally, I don't see how that's a bad presupposition since people can and do.

[MartianHoplite]

Ok, I'm still working on a response to the substantive points that have been raised in this thread. However, I'm going to go ahead and respond to some of the ancillary ones.

I once heard a Libertarian friend explain that if he happened to be carrying some insulin with him, and got on an elevator with a diabetic, and the elevator got stuck, he'd feel no ethical or moral obligation to share his insulin with the diabetic individual, even as they began sliding into hyperglycemia, even if he didn't need it and couldn't use it, himself.

I'd be willing to bet you either misunderstood his point or are misrepresenting it.

A libertarian would argue that the insulin is the property of the owner. Need doesn't transfer property rights and therefore the diabetic has no right to simply take it. The owner of the insulin has no obligation, to which they can be legally held, to share it.

However, in practice, most libertarians probably would share if someone was in genuine need. At the very worst, if the owner simply wanted to be a complete dick about it, and the diabetic had to take the insulin to save his own life, a libertarian court would rule that a property rights violation occured and simply order the diabetic to compensate the original owner of the insulin for his loss. The harm done to the owner is minimal and erased by a small amount of monetary restitution.

[brianeyci]

Ok, I'm still working on a response to the substantive points that have been raised in this thread. However, I'm going to go ahead and respond to some of the ancillary ones.

I once heard a Libertarian friend explain that if he happened to be carrying some insulin with him, and got on an elevator with a diabetic, and the elevator got stuck, he'd feel no ethical or moral obligation to share his insulin with the diabetic individual, even as they began sliding into hyperglycemia, even if he didn't need it and couldn't use it, himself.

I'd be willing to bet you either misunderstood his point or are misrepresenting it.

A libertarian would argue that the insulin is the property of the owner. Need doesn't transfer property rights and therefore the diabetic has no right to simply take it. The owner of the insulin has no obligation, to which they can be legally held, to share it.

However, in practice, most libertarians probably would share if someone was in genuine need. At the very worst, if the owner simply wanted to be a complete dick about it, and the diabetic had to take the insulin to save his own life, a libertarian court would rule that a property rights violation occured and simply order the diabetic to compensate the original owner of the insulin for his loss. The harm done to the owner is minimal and erased by a small amount of monetary restitution.

And that is different than right now how? Do you know what duty of care is and that a random person has no duty of care towards another random person in our society which I assume you say is not libertarian? A person cannot be sued for misperforming or failing to perform CPR in our society unless he has a duty to do so. Libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. It is bullshit and the faster you realize it the better.

By the way I suggest you go after Ender and his post. If your time is limited he is your biggest target and there's tons of people dogpiling you, so go after the strongest argument. Good luck with that one though.

[Ender]

I'll admit to being suprised that you returned - most people who come there to poke the hornet nest don't.

Ok, I'm still working on a response to the substantive points that have been raised in this thread. However, I'm going to go ahead and respond to some of the ancillary ones.

I once heard a Libertarian friend explain that if he happened to be carrying some insulin with him, and got on an elevator with a diabetic, and the elevator got stuck, he'd feel no ethical or moral obligation to share his insulin with the diabetic individual, even as they began sliding into hyperglycemia, even if he didn't need it and couldn't use it, himself.

I'd be willing to bet you either misunderstood his point or are misrepresenting it.

No, the point of that story is that libertarianism places more value on property rights then human life. Which you then confirm.

A libertarian would argue that the insulin is the property of the owner. Need doesn't transfer property rights and therefore the diabetic has no right to simply take it. The owner of the insulin has no obligation, to which they can be legally held, to share it.

However, in practice, most libertarians probably would share if someone was in genuine need. At the very worst, if the owner simply wanted to be a complete dick about it, and the diabetic had to take the insulin to save his own life, a libertarian court would rule that a property rights violation occured and simply order the diabetic to compensate the original owner of the insulin for his loss. The harm done to the owner is minimal and erased by a small amount of monetary restitution.

I'd try and hammer home how absurd this is, but you think it is A-OK to murder tax collectors, so it's pretty clear you are already in a different world.

[Darth Servo]

However, in practice, most libertarians probably would share if someone was in genuine need.

I highly doubt that given that property is the #1 priority to libertarians as you have so eloquently demonstrated.

[K. A. Pital]

At the very worst, if the owner simply wanted to be a complete dick about it, and the diabetic had to take the insulin to save his own life, a libertarian court would rule that a property rights violation occured

What "libertarian court", dickhead? What "courts" can there be in an anarchy, except mob courts and private corporate courts, both of which sound like a joke and a mockery of the word "court' itself.

[lPeregrine]

Huh. Sure didn't see this coming...

Only quoting a few bits, since I don't have nearly enough time to read/reply to the entire thread:

By the way fucker, I hope you are not going to a state school, or making use of any tuition assistance or scholarships. That would be contrary to your little creed. As would having your parents pay for it, you are over 18 and thus an independent adult, I hope you are paying your own way because if they are kicking in some then you are infringing on their property.

State school (NC State University) of course. So even if he's not here on scholarships, he's getting quite a bit of benefit from the government.

Fran is not an example of anarchy/libertarianism. Rural decentralisation saw too it that everyone had what most of what they needed, and the community "banded together" - your words- to provide goods and services that each other lacked. That is charity, not the free-market.

Not only that, but in many places (like the town where I live), Fran was just an annoyance. There were some trees down, and the power was out for a long time, but that's about it. The police and other government services were hardly disrupted, if at all. I don't know where he's from, but I know I didn't start making private contracts to secure my safety and all that...

Calling this an example of libertarianism is either stupidity, or dishonesty. At no point did Fran reach anything that could reasonably be called anarchy. And even if it briefly had, the fact that everyone knew the state was coming right back kept everyone acting as if nothing had changed. This would NOT be the same if it looks like the anarchy is here to stay for more than a few hours.


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

Yes, they made a power grab and attempted to institute themselves as a new government. This is not at all surprising given that most Somalis are probably not anarchists ideologically and quite likely sincerely want a monopolistic government of some sort. I don't think this criticism holds as much water in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society that has been intentionally created as such.

And this is exactly why hardcore libertarianism is a doomed ideology. When "and human nature magically changes into something completely opposite what we have now" is a requirement for your society, it's a concession of defeat.

The fatal flaw here is almost ANY society can work as long as every member of that society is perfectly good and honest and believes devoutly in the system. Communism, in Ideal Fantasy World, is an excellent system of government. Hardcore libertarianism falls into the same category... even if the moral issues could somehow be resolved, it only works in an unrealistic fantasy world.

[Covenant]

A fair fraction of Libertarians (extreme and otherwise) don't actually recognise the validity of intellectual property, and thus would say that there would be free reproduction of everything and creation of IP would be funded by other means. Some of the minarchists, as opposed to market-anarchists (or market fundamentalists as I prefer to call them) are actually opposed to DRM on principle.

That's one of the problems--as you stated, there would be heavy DRM put on stuff, since even if the Libertarians don't recognize intellectual property as actual property I'd be suprised to see to much media without DRM-type crud on it.

But that raises another point completely--if there's absolutely no assumption of the right to consider Intellectual Property actual property, then where is the incentive to actually produce intellectual goods, like art? How am I expected to be able to market, produce, and essentially manufacture my product if someone can just 'shoplift' it. Part of the problem with current copyright comes from the bad business practices it encourages--but if you can't even sell your product, how does this not lead to a massive collapse of anything non-manufactured?

Movie companies, for example, could be expected to make money off the films themselves that they could sell to theatres (such as selling 100 reels of 'Fuck Yeah Dragons' to Omnicineplex for 5k a reel), but since media is easy to reproduce, couldn't Omnicineplex buy one film and then just make 99 more copies, for free, and play them on digital projectors?

And could you even legitimately stop someone from bootlegging it? If there's no such thing as intellectual property, then how could I be infringing on a property right by videotaping a performance and then selling that to a different theatre, or to people outside, or so on?

Copyright, as it stands, is broken in the ways the RIAA and Universeal/Paramount groups want to apply it, but the idea that you're not allowed to reproduce a piece of media is still a valid one. Otherwise there's no way you can expect to be paid for what you do. You'd need to encourage monopolies and such, so that the film company not only owns the materials used in the production, but also the company that produces, devleops, and distributes the film.

Imagine if you wrote a book, and since there's no such thing as intellectual property rights, the editor steals it, rewrites it as editors do, and sells it? And then the publisher rips off the cheating editor, relabels it, and sells it themselves?

Hopefully some of these violates would be solved by contractual obligations not to do that, and you could seek repayment in court, but there's way too little understanding on the Libertarian front for the difficulties in getting paid for something you don't own.

[bilateralrope]

Hopefully some of these violates would be solved by contractual obligations not to do that, and you could seek repayment in court,

Well that would stop the editors and publisher ripping you off. But not the other publisher that you haven't had any dealings with from ripping all three of you off. Unless one publisher uses their hired muscle to take out all the other publishers.