by Ethan Johnson
February 20, 2007
With apologies to Scott Adams, I consider myself to be something of an "idea rat." Some ideas are best served by being released to the wild, where someone with the ways, means, and motivation to bring it to fruition might have at it, no strings attached. This one is maddeningly simple, and I can't believe that nobody has acted on this yet (to my knowledge).
I will lay down some root assumptions and facts, which will lead to the grand reveal:
- Assumption: Libertarianism as an ideology/system is largely, if not wholly theoretical.
- Fact: Libertarianism in its raw form has never been openly practiced in the United States. (Clarification: There is no model town/county/state/region held up as a template for the rest of the world.)
- Fact: The adoption of "pure" Libertarianism would be a radical adjustment for the entire country, if it ever were to come to pass.
- Assumption: "Pure" Libertarianism is too radical to be sustainable.
- Fact: Many people identify as Libertarians.
- Assumption: Libertarianism can be tested in a controlled environment, and the results of the testing can be applied or rejected as applicable.
- Assumption: A testing ground and willing test subjects may be readily identified.
- Assumption: Testing can be performed without significantly disrupting current political/social/economic systems.
OK, so what does this all mean?
Simply put, why hasn't anyone adapted the "Second Life" virtual model to "pure" Libertarianism? Setting up a test town, let alone a larger area takes time, various agreements, rules, and so forth. For example, I'm not sure how many towns will agree to be located next to a test zone that lacks any sort of drug or firearm laws, for example. Even if the test subjects behaved like saints and kept to themselves, they'll flinch on principle. Ah, but virtual reality? Smoke away! Shoot up the town! It's not like it doesn't happen on various game consoles every moment of the day anyway.
If the test environment proves successful, this could lead to live testing, and who knows, widespread acceptance and adoption.
If the test environment proves unsuccessful, well, back to the drawing board. Feel free to call self-identified Libertarians as "dead-enders."
Seriously, why hasn't anyone thought of this?
If anyone has, please let me know, as I'm interested to learn how the experiment is faring.
Any takers? <EM>
What your talking about is a more thorough manifestation of the porcupines and their Free State Project, wherein a bunch of libertarians move to a single state and take over there political structure. What chance this had of working died when they chose New Hampshire over the much more logical choice of Wyoming. But let's say that they chose Wyoming. A near best case scenario that still fails:
1) A bunch of libertarians move to Wyoming and repeal a whole bunch of laws.
2) Wyoming's economy booms.
3) Companies, attracted to the lax regulatory environment relocate to Wyoming
4) People move to Wyoming to staff said companies
5) Said employees relocate to fill job openings there, see areas where the government needs to get involved, vote libertarians out of office and replace them with Republicans or Democrats.
One might suppose that the employees would see that the system was working and not want to tinker with it, but they would be wrong. The city and state that I was raised in is chalk full of people that moved from the northeast and industrial midwest and then preceeded to lecture us that everything we do is wrong and that we should aspire to be more like the states they left. Canadians do the same sort of thing, except are typically much more obnoxious about it.
But hey, it's a free country. Part of the libertarian ethos is that you are free to believe what you want. And America is a democratic republic, so they get to vote on their beliefs, too. However, that makes it incompatible with libertarianism absent Constitutional safeguards that are unrealistic in the US of A.