X-Message-Number: 23078 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:39:58 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Questioning Pure Libertarianism Ron Havelock, #23065: >...To some extent the >US is a libertarian country and that is probably why we cryonauts are by far >the strongest and most viable here in the US. This may be true, but I also question whether a radical or "pure" form of libertarianism would be the best system to advocate, in part because I think human nature might not allow it to persist in such pure form. As one possible case in point, I understand that some generations ago, in a certain geographical locale, the government was very weak and the people sensed a need to more or less set up a system of their own to maintain order and such. At that point they could have opted for a highly libertarian system, but instead what emerged was more of a feudal-type system with patrons, clients, and brokers. If you were not powerful yourself you allied yourself with someone who was, and in return for your loyal and material support you would obtain protection and services. I read about this in the book, _A Man of Honor_. The author, Joseph Bonanno, was describing his native Sicily, and the "system," which he referred to as his "Tradition," was exported to some extent to the U.S., where it became known as La Cosa Nostra. I am not saying that an attempt to set up a libertarian system would necessarily devolve into something like this. Its creators probably were never seriously contemplating such a system anyway, and the U.S. version, with all its notoriety, was in some ways significantly different from its Sicilian parent, and may have become still more different. Bonanno was not necessarily the perfect, objective historian either. But I think that what happened with his Tradition says something about human nature and I would advocate proceeding with caution in any proposal of radical reform. I also think certain attitudes among radical libertarians are harmful and/or counterproductive. I do, on the other hand, think we badly need _more_ libertarianism in certain areas so that, for example, each competent adult (at least) could choose a premortem cryopreservation when the time of need came. But here I want to offer some thoughts for toning down what I see as too radical in one way or another. Naturally I am interested in readers' responses. Three proposals for consideration: 1. Citizens should not have weapons of mass destruction. 2. Barring exceptional and unlikely cases, it would be wrong to advocate killing non-libertarian politicians, bureaucrats, and their supporters. 3. Before a libertarian system is strongly advocated at the national level, it should be tested and prove itself at a more limited, regional level. Best wishes to all (and a kevlar vest), Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23078