My Childhood is Ruined, thanks, Libertarians!

[zaichikarky]

I doubt that many of you know that I have huge problem with Libertarianism. Maybe I'll get into more detail about that some other time, but the basic reason is simple. Libertarians are just like communists. They have SOME good ideas, but society is not able to function in their way. There is no such thing as communism, nor has there ever been true communism, nor WILL there ever be true communism. Libertarianism is the same thing. It is unbelievably impractical and human nature will render any kind of goodness away from Libertarian philosophy(and to be honest, I find MUCH more goodness in Communist philosophy than Libertarianism).

Anyway, so when I was around 10-12 years old, I read this book which I thought was incredibly awesome at the time called The Girl Who Owned a City. At the time I loved it because it was a very strong female protagonist named LISA and she was pretty damn badass. Also it helped that it was a post-apocalyptic book and I'm kind of a sucker for those to this day. The basic premise is that all adults died from some virus leaving the world with only kids under the age of 12 alive.

I decided to re-read it for the first time the other night. I first noticed that it was published in the 70s, and thought "Oh cool! It's even older than I thought!" I found that to be cool because books with such female protagonists were incredibly rare during that time period. The next thing which I read was the author's bio which stated he is known for creating some kind of Libertarian business. Of course, I thought "Fuck Libertarianism" but that wasn't really going to stop me from re-reading it- yeah I'm not THAT judgmental.

So when I was re-reading it, I noticed some annoying issues that I probably didn't when I was a kid. First of all, why does the book not mention any dead/rotting bodies anywhere? Second of all, WTF is with 5 year olds learning how to drive? Wasn't stick shift prevalent back then? I don't think the 10 year olds should have picked up driving immediately either. There are several other issues, but whatever, I'm willing to forgive that.

It isn't until later in the book when I realize that the book is incredibly preachy and it is so pushing the author's political views. Lisa was raised as a Libertarian, I suppose because she clearly knew about Libertarian philosophies and put them to practice immediately.

Here is the conversation that really did it for me:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Lisa, why do you keep calling it your city- saying that it's your property.'

'Because it is! I thought I told everyone that one the first day.'

'But we've all helped to build it, haven't we?' argued Jill. 'The kids are starting to call you selfish. They don't like it when you call it yours. They want to feel they own it too.'

'Selfish? I guess I am. But there's more to it than that. Don't forget, it was my discovery. The place was just sitting here empty, belonging to no one. I found it, planned it, filled it with my supplies, and now I run it.

'Nobody else seems to want my job, you know. Craig will probably wind up going off to his farm. And you'll leave too, someday, and start your hospital. That's ownership, isn't it? Will it be selfish for him to own his own farm? Will people call him selfish for selling the crops from his farm?

'Why should this be any different, Jill? I didn't think it made any difference at all, but then I started to imagine what would happen to Glenbard if more than one person was in charge. If the city belonged to no one in particular, we'd form a group that would vote on things. And that would be bad.'

'Bad? how so, Lisa? Voting is a good thing. It's fair if everybody has a chance to help decide important things. You sure have some strange ideas.'

Lisa ignored the insult. 'Do you think it would be fair for the group to decide that all supplies I found were suddenly community property, and that I don't have the right to decide how they should be used? What would stop them from deciding to vote away my right to the cars I find, now that I've taught children how to drive?'

'No, Jill. I know that you like to share things, but it just doesn't work out the way you'd like it to. In the first place, nothing would ever get done. With no one in charge, no one to make decisions, the group would argue all the time about whose property should be shared. And then everybody would be squabbling about how to dive things up, and they'd be too busy to accomplish anything.

'I do own this place and I don't force anyone to stay. I didn't for you or anyone else to come here. it's a free thing. I'm willing to take the worries and the responsibility, but I'll keep the control, thank you,' she said a little angrily.

'Call me selfish all you like, but I don't want to own anybody. I don't want anyone to own me, and that's what a sharing group wants to do.

'Think about it, Jill. Let's say, for example, that you have a hospital someday. You find a building, You reclaim Central Dupage Hospital with your ideas, your decisions, and your hard work. Running things is work, you know, hard work! Then imagine that the people you'd hired to work in the building decide to form a group so they can help you run it. And, just suppose that you get some wild ideas, some really big, exciting plans for the hospital, and they decide that you're nuts. And then they vote the hospital away from you. Even if the vote was ten against your one, would that make it fair?'

'But Lisa, this is different. Cities are never owned by people. They're much too big and complicated for one person to run.'

'Ah, but you're wrong there, Jill. My dad was telling me about new cities owned by individuals, and they worked out much better, because no one owned anyone else. In those new places, no group could decide about your life or vote things away from you. And you had to run a good city, or people would leave it. Those cities were just getting started at the time of the Plague. In fact, there was a whole country being build that way- I read about it in a magazine. The place was called Minerva, the Republic of Minerva'

'I think you're in for trouble if you keep calling it your city.'

Lisa considered her next words carefully. 'Freedom is more important than sharing, Jill. This is my city. I plan to run it well and build it into something good. But I must be free to do it the way I think is best.' And she thought some more. 'And if you, or Craig, or anyone else doesn't like it, then you can use your freedom... and leave'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to give an analysis on that conversation because it's unnecessary. The only thing I'm going to say is that I find it unbelievably amusing that the author decided to reference The Republic of Minerva, some kind of failed Libertarian experiment in the 70s. 100 million dollars from some dumbass rich Libertarian to prove that Libertarianism doesn't work? Pretty hilarious to me. What's even better is that he KEPT TRYING.

What's also funny is that the book is geared to older elementary school children. What kind of freaken 11 year old is going to understand or even be INTERESTED IN the political dogma present in the book?

The biography also said that the author was working on a sequel. I suppose he lost interest, maybe due to him being disappointed in indoctrinating future generations of Libertarians . The internets have little to no information about him. I am curious about his life. He may be dead for all I know. What I know is that I wish I had not re-read this book as an adult. Being smart really ruins things sometimes :|.

Comments

[testing4l.livejournal.com]

Second of all, WTF is with 5 year olds learning how to drive? Wasn't stick shift prevalent back then? I don't think the 10 year olds should have picked up driving immediately either. There are several other issues, but whatever, I'm willing to forgive that.

You've obviously grown up in an urban setting to suggest that. 8)

Many of the people on my dad's side of the family work on farms or ranches in Wyoming. It's not at all unusual for them to drive tractors by the age of 5.

After all, kids equate roughly to farmhands out there.

I first noticed that it was published in the 70s, and thought "Oh cool! It's even older than I thought!" I found that to be cool because books with such female protagonists were incredibly rare during that time period.

I'm not sure they're as rare as you think. Heinlein (who is so often unjustly castigated as a chauvinist) wrote a number of well respected books with female protagonists about a decade beforehand. Ursula K. Le Guin had been writing some of her best work prior to 1970 rolling around.

The ground had definitely been broken -- especially in science fiction.

100 million dollars from some dumbass rich Libertarian to prove that Libertarianism doesn't work?

But it didn't prove that. It proved that a small population of unarmed people was unwilling to fight off the troops that the Tongan government was willing to send in.

Ultimately though, even if it had worked, it wouldn't have proven necessarily that it does work. Even communism works in small settings.

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

Many of the people on my dad's side of the family work on farms or ranches in Wyoming. It's not at all unusual for them to drive tractors by the age of 5.

Yeah I just don't get how their feet can even touch the petals or look over the windshield. They may sit on books or something, but I don't get how it's possible still...


I'm not sure they're as rare as you think. Heinlein (who is so often unjustly castigated as a chauvinist) wrote a number of well respected books with female protagonists about a decade beforehand. Ursula K. Le Guin had been writing some of her best work prior to 1970 rolling around.

Interesting. I have never heard of Heinlein, and I am still meaning to read Le Guin. I still found the book to be pretty ground-breaking in that aspect, especially since it was a children's book.

[testing4l.livejournal.com]

They may sit on books or something, but I don't get how it's possible still...

Tractors aren't quite like automobiles -- they're smaller. A kid can usually do OK just by sitting farther forward in the seat than an adult would. Without even looking, I'd bet a whole dollar that there's videos of kids in tractor pull competitions on YouTube.

Interesting. I have never heard of Heinlein,

Saying you haven't heard of Heinlein is remarkably similar to saying that you've never heard of Isaac Asimov.

Heinlein's won the most Hugos and Hugo nominations of any author. He was nominated several times for a Nebula, though he never managed to win one.

Asimov once wrote (rather modestly ignoring his own work) that there had been three names in science fiction that stood before all others. The first was E.E. "Doc" Smith (who wrote for the pulps, so you probably haven't heard of him), the second was Stanley G. Weinbaum (who died relatively early on, so you probably haven't heard of him), and the third was Robert Heinlein.

Stranger in a Strange Land is likely his best known work -- you've heard me say "grok" before. That's the novel it came from.

Incidentally, he also wrote a series of sci-fi books for kids -- starting all the way back in 1947. The last of them was published in 1958 or 1965 (depending on whether you take Heinlein's word for it or his readers').

Three (one a year between 1949 and 1951) were written with a female main character. He wrote them because someone at the editorial staff for the company said they wished that someone would write material for little girls.

The last one in 1965 used a similar character to those first three. He said that he liked her so much that he helped her lose weight, changed her name, and moved her to Mars.

By way of introduction, you might want to start with Have Space Suit -- Will Travel which was one of the "juveniles". Time Enough for Love and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are also good places to start.

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

Yeah I kind of figured driving a tractor isn't quite like driving a car. You can probably see a lot more and you're up very high.

Ok, I'll check out Heinlein some time ! I should probably try the earthsea saga first. Hopefully I will like it. Usually I have found that I hate MOST "fantasy" novels but love most sci fi novels. If I feel like a novel is too fantasy for me, I usually won't try to read it... Unfortunately the sci-fi/fantasy genres are quite related to each other.

[purplehaze9.livejournal.com]

This is actually interesting to me because I have a real-life story from today that depicts the exact opposite of what happened in your book. Quite frankly, I'd take your book scenario over what people here have to deal with.

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

Elaborate please!

Also, I told a friend from Idol to contact you because she is seriously thinking about working in China or Korea so she may be contacting you. I was pretty sure you wouldn't mind answering her questions : ).

Edit:

Oh are you talking about that communist issue you just wrote about in your blog? Basically Communism and Libertarianism are polar opposites. The only thing they have in common is that they do not work in practice. Communism just fosters oppression and corruption and if there ever was a large-scale Libertarian effort, I believe it would actually end up much worse than "Communist" countries.

[purplehaze9.livejournal.com]

What makes you believe that libertarianism would be worse?

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

Because I feel that "too much government" is much, MUCH better than having hardly any government. I'm actually kind of a socialist. I used to be a communist, but then decided that I kind of hate communism so now I'm more of a socialist.

[purplehaze9.livejournal.com]

If you are comfortable with that label, then your philosophies would fit in pretty well with the CPC.

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

The kind of socialism the CPC and other "communist" countries practices isn't great. I am more looking at Scandinavian countries as a role model for Socialism. They basically have it there. However, I'm not quite sure it will ever work out in America.

[purplehaze9.livejournal.com]

Scandinavian countries are not socialist by any stretch. As a matter of fact, they are the complete opposite. Sweden is actually privatizing various branches that were once partially or completely government controlled in an attempt to reduce government spending and hopefully lower taxes. It's basically the opposite of what most other countries are doing.

Just because government spending and taxation are at higher rates does not mean that it is a socialist government. Socialism stretches beyond economics and breaches fundamental civil rights and individual freedoms.

As a matter of fact, Sweden and Finland are in the top 25 of the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom. Meanwhile, socialist/communist countries such as China, Vietnam and Russia rank well outside of the top 100 countries.

If you have the time and interest, I recommend reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek and/or Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman.

-----------------

I should make a note to say that I know that my tone is a bit on the confrontational side. I know you're not easily offended, but I just want to make clear that I am not trying to lecture or talk down to you (I can get a bit preachy on occasion).

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

A lot of conservatives like to preach that the Scandinavian countries are socialist and it is kind of a myth, yeah. They are capitalist overall, however they have a lot of socialist tendencies which includes some of the highest income taxes in the world which I think is great. I think that it is great how America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world(and this has come as kind of surprising to me) but overall, I feel that we should be paying lots more taxes and gaining a lot more benefits of such taxes such as a huge deduction in higher education as well as universal health care.

I don't really stand by oppression. Socialism is practiced in China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. but it always comes with high oppression. I'm originally from the Soviet Union so while those days were overall probably better than today's Russia, no one really wants to go back to further repression. Oppression and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think that it is practical to really have a purely socialist government in Western countries. However, we can look towards certain European countries as an example of what is possible with higher taxes, more benefits, and little oppression(at least, a similar amount of oppression in Western Countries).

I know you're conservative so we probably oppose, and that's ok... Just as long as you're not a Libertarian!(J/K, actually I kind of hope my Libertarian friend does not read this entry XD;). I don't mind that you're a conservative, what I hate are Tea Party people and I actually hate them in the way I wish all of them would burn in hell kind of way XD;.

[purplehaze9.livejournal.com]

High taxes and high spending does not make an economy socialist. Wanting those things does not make a person a socialist. Just because you wish to make changes that give the government more power does not make you a socialist.

Economic and personal freedoms are connected. Take one away and the other one will soon follow. If a government takes away the economic freedom of the individual, it will lead to the creation of a collective economy such as socialism. Maintaining control of the collective economy requires the removal of personal freedoms. This then leads to a tyrannical government as a central authority now controls both economic and personal freedoms. In short, to restrict one is to restrict the other.

Based on what I read, I do not believe this fits your views.

I don't like to really label myself regarding my political and economic beliefs. Labels such as liberal and conservative change over time.

I like to associate myself with a philosophy of thought because that is the basis of political and economic beliefs. Thus, I am a freethinker. As a freethinker, I believe that there is insufficient evidence to define the existence of a God. Conversely, you cannot prove that something does not exist. So, I would be an agnostic atheist indefinitely. Thus, my views on religion and moral issues are heavily opposed to them. Since these moral beliefs are often held by Tea Party followers, I also do not fit in with them.

I do not fit in with the Democratic Party as they are too supportive of inefficient entitlement programs such as Social Security and are too spend-happy (though Reps. are not too far behind in that area).

My party would be one that maximizes personal and economic freedoms within reason. Since no political party actually does that well, I am left alone in the abyss :(

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

High taxes and high spending does not make an economy socialist. Wanting those things does not make a person a socialist. Just because you wish to make changes that give the government more power does not make you a socialist.


I never said that I was an "economy socialist". Overall, and according to all those political quizzes, I am a "moderate liberal" which I'd have to agree with. I came to undergrad as a communist and left as a moderate liberal which I've stayed at and probably will stay at. People tend to get more conservative as they age. I took econ in undergrad and I hated the class more than any other class I took... but we didn't really go into political economies or theoretical structures.

There are many types of socialism. What is practiced in communist countries are one type. The problem is that there are rather poor models of PURE socialism and so we look at China and North Korea as socialist examples. I don't think that Socialism without oppression would work in most countries. I do think, however, that the government should be huge and that money should be allocated more properly... whatever that means. No, I don't think it will work in America. What they have in certain European countries is pretty ideal for me, though. I wish I could move there, but probably never will.

In any case, there is no political party who fits me either so I never registered for a party. I'm not even "Independent" because I was under the impression that I would be supporting "independent" candidates, most of whom I don't support either. Usually I vote for the democratic candidate only in principle because I usually can't stand the Republican candidate.

[purplehaze9.livejournal.com]

And yeah, she can contact me.

[pixiebelle.livejournal.com]

I first glanced at this when you added me, but didn't get a chance to comment. I have to say that I think our political beliefs are pretty close. The propaganda in this book was probably there to intentionally convince future generations that this was the way to be. It was an influence on them. Or maybe it was by accident, the writer let his personal belies filter through without realizing it....but somehow, I doubt that.

And I read above how you feel about Tea Party people. Yeah, you and me both. I despise them too :)

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain hates the tea party : ). If you're a crazy liberal like me(actually I'm not quite as liberal as many people I know...), California is the right place for you!

How is a perfectly straight line different than a line?

[a-fish-bucket.livejournal.com]

Hm, hm, hm. I think it is a sad day when Glenn Beck is more honest about what the government is doing than Keith Olbermann. America was founded on what the current President has called "negative rights" - I like to think of them as protections - so that the government can't do certain things to you. I have great respect for some of the Founding Fathers of my country. On communism, all I have to say to you is a phrase that's been beat to death:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Libertarians try to bring government far from utopia (which means "no place") and take it closer to anarchy (natural state).

Communism has a noble goal. But it doesn't consider that human nature is to be selfish. In a way, libertarianism takes the assumption that people are going to be selfish and greedy and tries to prevent people from being able to make other people do what they don't want to do. I am not a full Libertarian. I'm actually more of an anti-Federal Localist. I wish the United States was still a Restricted Democratic Republic - but it's very complicated. And that experiment was silly. A micronation on a practically uninhabitable island. And I don't consider China or North Korea as socialist.

I'd ask you to look at Europe and you'll see it's falling. Socialist countries are failing. The Federal Government doesn't need to get its hands into these things any more than it already has without reassessing things. We're far too indebted. There's too much of a mess in this country, and if you want American to be on top, it needs to be spending less. If you don't want America to be on top, then you're more of an internationalist. As far as I'm concerned, wherever I'm living I want to be the best place on Earth. I want to be left alone. I don't want any wars we don't have to be involved in. I don't want the government keeping track of me indefinitely unless I want it to. Are those things selfish? Actually, they are. Sorry I'm human. :{

P.S., Stranger in a Strange Land was a horrible read.

Re: How is a perfectly straight line different than a line?

[majesticzaichik.livejournal.com]

I think what bothers me most is that Libertarians wish to bring the world closer to anarchy. This is just one of the reasons I hate Libertarianism. If you want to acknowledge that humans are selfish, you have to acknowledge that humans can't function without some kind of leadership, some kind of structure ruling over them. I would rather have big brother than everyone living like cavemen. There would be NO society if there was anarchy. It's just horribly implausible.

I don't think Europe is falling any more than the US is falling. The US isn't falling because they're spending too much money on crap you don't support, it's because of the economic crisis. I think the US will be on top for quite a long time, but yeah it's true that I don't really care if I live in the best country in the world. I don't think the US is the best country for you. I wonder what the most "Libertarian" country is. I bet living there really sucks :3. Ok, apparently it is Estonia. OMG THERE IS MY POINT. I'm just joking XD.

Obviously you and I agree about nothing politically. I still <3 you!