Thank you for offering a civil discussion on libertarianism and not discounting it as some "fringe" outlook.
So that's one way of seeing it. The other thing I must wonder is, if it is such a natural state for humans to exist in, then why hasn't it simply emerged on its own? There is Libertarian writing and philosophy that predates Marx if I am not mistaken, and yet Communism took off a lot faster.
Quite simply, I think governments exist in cycles. At least with the Romans, you saw greater expansion into citizen's liberty, property, and life as time grew on.
Then you see Dark Ages. Happened with the Mycaneans(spelling) as well in Greece. Slowly societies and their laws merge or overcome each other, and you end up with a government that expands to the point in which it loses stability and collapses, or gets overtaken by another. In Greece's case, the Macedonians. MASSIVE expansion in just twelve years under Alexander. Then you see a new thing, fractioning, then collapse as Roman Republic takes over.
But something happened with Rome that was different. It was a rejuvenation that turned into the Roman Empire. It maintained cohesiveness to a certain extent, but eventually liberties were assaulted, and eventually fracturing and collapse. The Huns scaring the Vandals and Visigoths into Rome didn't help either.
Now we have expansion yet again and to be quite honest, even our metaphysical expansions are waning. Eventually I expect to see fracturing and once again collapse.
But the start of the restructuring is *always* founded upon libertarian ideals. You don't see tribal societies immediately starting communism. It may look like it, but communism requires centralization, something that is impossible to do if the central organization has nothing to offer. Eventually frustration with others in the anarchy gives light to new order with a community (and numbers) that can stop such anarchy. But property rights are not immediately removed. Nor is free thought. Indeed that is the emergence. But that emergence happened in the late 1700's through the 1800's and was effectively ended with FDR.
Anyway, I haven't really structured any of this in even a half-ass arguable form and I'm sorry, but I'll just give you an idea of what I think the stages of any government are:
The US, and indeed much of the world is in "Recision" right now. This also involves polarization to an extent, and of course that happens during the course of any of these areas, so technically we could fall under Expansion. But once polarization starts leading to eventual geographic polarization, which it may indeed do in the near future, Recision is nearing completion, and Fracturization is next.
It's hard to tell if the US will be able to jump from Recision back to Interpolation (like Rome did) or not.
Also, what confounds me is how to measure polarization in an information age. Before, people would actually move to a location where like minds existed. But in the Information Age, we can retreat to our homes and polarize there.
So if this does happen, what we will actually see, is large numbers of people that simple won't interact at work, school, etc. They won't give a crap about the people located physically near them, and instead associate with those they are polarized with online.
This has some odd effects. It could mean distrust in those we *do* have a reality with. I'm not saying everyone will go anti-social, but it is possible that enough people won't put value in physical relationships with neighbors and community and will become victims to those that do.
An example would be lower class citizens maintaining ties to each other and being able to easily overpower middle and upper class citizens because of the lack of response between each other
But it could all be disproven easily since even lower classes (at least in the US) have access to computers. (libraries, universities, etc.)
[ Parent ]