[ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension?

[Dan]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:54 AM Amon Zero amon at doctrinezero.com wrote:
>> I'd have little problem as a libertarian if people want to keep paying --
>> save with them paying for activities that by their nature violate rights. 
<snip>
>> Once there is an exit option, even if most people don't use it, this doesn't
>> mean the option is invalid. And, yes, some people might stay out of habit,
>> but my guess is were it voluntary, given the level of taxation, people who
>> continued to pay would mostly be those who wanted to. 
>
> You know, this idea intrigues me, for the simple reason that on the one hand,
> studies in the cognitive science of Judgment & Decision Making JDM strongly
> suggest that the vast majority of people would stick with the default option
> (which would be paying tax in an opt-out system).

 
I'm not sure if such studies should be used to trump individual choice here. I mean, if you were living in a place where everyone was forced to worship the idol and defecate on anything smacking of science, would you argue for keeping that force in place because, well, studies have shown most people will continue to worship the idol and defecate on anything smacking of science?
 
> On the other hand, there would be a *huge* monetary incentive to opt-out! That
> doesn't mean people*would* opt-out; it just means that it'd be very interesting
> (psychologically speaking) if they didn't.

 
I would also point out that folks at the margins -- ones who would opt out if given the choice, but, since there is no choice generally don't complain -- will probably lead the way. In other words, they'll opt out, then others will recognize there's a choice and start to opt out too. At least, this is my guess as what would happen.
 
> I'll have a look around in the literature and see what kind of sums people will
> implicitly pay in order to stick with the default. Most studies I'm aware of
> are in the domain of pensions, so not quite on the scale of tax payments I
> guess, but if I find anything interesting I'll let you know.
 
 
IIRC, in the US, income tax evasion was much higher before withholding became the law. With withholding income, the problem is people have to do something to get it back. Before that, people had to do something positive to pay the tax. I think that might be part of the psychology here. But again, why should what many people or even most people might do be the rule for everyone else?
 
Amon said:
>>> Anyway, none of this is directly relevant to my original question, which
>>> was whether libertarians would just accept majority judgment if it turned
>>> out that people *did* want to pay taxes.
>>
Dan said:
>> Do you just mean: if most people want to pay for these things absent coercion,
>> then they should be allowed to. Yes, I'd agree. And that would be consistent
>> with libertarianism as I understand -- with the exception of paying for
>> things that inherently or essentially violate rights. Or do you mean: if
>> most people want to pay for these things absent coercion, then everyone
>> else should pay for these things too? In that case, no. Even if the majority
>> wants to pay, this should no[t] infringe on anyone else's freedom to not pay
>> and to not be coerced for not paying.
>
> I meant the stronger - latter - case. The scenario I intended to convey was as follows:
> 
> 1) Libertarians get into power and enact radical reforms
 
 
I'll continue along with your scenario, but the problem I see here with phrasing. Libertarians -- well, true libertarians -- wouldn't want to get into power, but to get rid of power. :) This is like saying, "When anarchist take over the state..." or "When atheists control the church..."
 
> 2) Public reacts badly and calls for repeal of all such reforms, effectively
> voting for coercion and making it
> unlikely that the libertarians will get their way any time soon
> 3) Libertarians tend to react... how, I wonder?

 
I don't know how they will react. This is just a guess on anyone's part. And what sort of response are you expecting? They'll crack heads? I'd expect, under the scenario you're outlining, the public -- by which I believe you just mean a majority -- would undo the reforms... Or, since libertarians would basically dismantle and abolish the state, that the rest of the people would simply reconstitute the state and that would be that. In which case, what would libertarians, either as individuals or en masse, be able to do? Emigrate?
 
> I think the softer scenario (coercion isn't involved, but people can still
> choose to pay) is compatible with libertarianism, so it doesn't get at the
> potential tension between libertarianism and majority-decided-policy (i.e.
> democracy).
 
 
Recall when you mentioned the tension, I agreed there already was an antagonism. Libertarianism is not democratic. That might be shocking to those who are wed to the notion that democracy is sacred and all that, but libertarianism as such is NOT democratic. It actually stands against majority rule -- just as it stands against minority rule (oligarchy) and one individual ruling others (autocracy). In fact, libertarianism as such is against anyone ruling anyone else. (Again, this is not antinomian, but merely the view that sovereignty resides in the individual -- not in some person or group.)
 
> The scenario described above might be wildly unlikely, I don't
> know, and it is probably a question none of us can answer with authority,
> but I *was* interested to see that one or two people essentially responded
> with "of course there's a tension between libertarianism and democracy",
> which suggests that the perception is 'out there', rather than simply some
> random musing on my part.

 
I wonder, since you claim to have been an anarchocapitalist (or market anarchist), why this is news to you. No offence, but this is like Libertarianism 101. I mean to say that people who first learn about libertarianism often ask just this question and any libertarian thinker worth her or his salt, such as Rothbard or even minarchists like Nozick, have already answered this. The core principle of libertarianism establish a boundary that others -- whether they call themselves the king, the majority, the people, the rulers, the state, the public interest, the nation, the government, the super race, the annointed of God -- cannot cross... Well, cannot cross and remain consistent with libertarianism.
 
> I just have a fascination with situations where a stance can in fact imply
> its polar opposite, taoism-style, and wondered if this might be one such
> situation, with a desire for personal liberty leading some people down a
> road where they would deny the wishes of most others. I'm not saying that
> would be indefensible, per se - just that it would be very interesting, I think.
 
 
It would depend on the wishes of others, whether they are most others, a few others, or one other. Mere numbers wouldn't and shouldn't matter here. If these others wish to violate rights -- that is, to coerce -- then, yes, libertarians should be against them and go against these others wishes. This is no different than the person who wants to force me to adhere to his religion or believe his theory. The mere fact that many others follow him or that his faction currently holds power should not suddenly change my mind. Should it change yours? If so, why? 
 
Regards,
 
Dan