You implicitly point out the real variation in laws, which is I could just move to a country that has laws that I agree more with. But they are still a bundle of laws, and I have to choose to take them as a bundle. That, I feel, isn’t due to the process you describe (hey! it just works out better this way!), but because we’ve historically assumed the necessity of a central government, that central government was derived from governments that previously worked as sovereign owners of a large chunk of land, and that government due to its monopoly position, has accrued a lot of functions that we could actually do more effectively and justly in an unbundled fashion. It’s not like our idea of governance just popped out of nowhere.

Incidentally, I once read a hilarious libertarian counter-argument to you point which said “well, if it’s all going to end up like constitutional government anyway, WHY DON’T WE JUST DISBAND THE GOVERNMENT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS? If you’re right, the worse that could happen is exactly the same as it is now, and if I’m right, we win!”

Governance in a decentralized world *is* what we have now. Hierarchical organization is decentralized for those things which can be/need to be managed locally, and centrally managed when that makes more sense. There are obviously innefficiencies in the decision process of what is the level in the hierarchy which properly should deal with any particular issue; but those decisions are properly in the domain of constitutional contract negotiations and arbitrations. We have a Supreme Court in the US precisely to decide these sorts of issues. Really, if you think of the US constitution as a contract between and among the people, the system we’re in is basically already libertarian!

That sounds like you’re forming a community with laws that you’re imposing on others. What if some member of your community wants to trade with the un-vaccinated? Can you restrict them from doing so? Wait a minute, starting to sound like maybe what you have is Government, Laws, and maybe a Constitution here….

1. This one is actually covered in some detail in the anarcho-capitalist tradition. I think David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom is one of the easier to read and critique. Basically: law enforcement is performed by competing private enforcement groups, who negotiate and arbitrate between themselves. Sewers, vaccination programs, are created through voluntary funded works (because a) why wouldn’t you?, and b) such programs have been funded privately in the past. The question of how you cope with *universal* vaccination is trickier, but the suggestion would be that you would contractually require anyone doing trade with your community to vaccinate. You wouldn’t be able to vaccinate those who don’t want to vaccinate, but you make it far more worth their while to vaccinate than they would otherwise consider (which is pretty much what governments do).

2. See above. Sure, you may end up with a constitutional system, but I think a system that’s similiar to today, but not dependent on a principle of a monopoly of violent coercion owned by a particular political group or class would be an improvement.

3. I think that the reasons why it’s unconvincing need to be expanded upon; I think most of us have a gut instinct that it isn’t going to get done until we’re all forced to pay for it — but is that true? And if so, why is it true, when decentralised systems like markets have frequently been effective in allocating other resources effectively? If it’s true now, could we change and reinforce our cultural institutions so it wouldn’t be true in the future?

I don’t think you could set up a happy libertarian state right now, but I think working out governance in a decentralized world is the future we face, so we should plunder ideas from where ever we can get them.

@nicks

Not harsh, but fair, although the libertarian counterculture here still likes their guns. Brian Doherty’s book before Radicals For Capitalism was about Burning Man, which makes me think of my friend’s reminiscence that BM lost its edge when you stopped being greeted at the gate with a guy in a dress with a gun and a flask of whiskey.

1. Large-scale infrastructure projects — what is the libertarian plan for law enforcement (who pays?); large-scale vaccination programs; sewers; sports stadiums; a hundred other categories?
2. Defense of the common good and enforcement of personal rights (property and other rights). Are there communally funded armies and police forces in a libertarian system? Who governs those armies? Is the contract for the governance of those armies much different from *gasp* a constitution and system of laws?
3. “Charity”, ie some form of redistribution of wealth from the comfortable propertied classes to those who through some circumstances perhaps beyond their control, perhaps not, cannot live a comfortable or enjoyable life. Regard for this last point will obviously depend on ones personal sense of morality and ethics, but even the most hard-hearted “you get what you deserve” asshole can likely be shown some circumstance where they’d agree that something needs to be done for some unfortunate; I am unconvinced that private voluntary charity can effectively address everything which needs addressing.