I appreciate everyone's patience. I will soon begin catching up with this thread - but first... A very significant misperception has been expressed on this thread, and I must answer it in full.
A real libertarian doesn't make a lifestyle out of charity.
(1) What is a "libertarian"?The term "
libertarian(ism)" isn't precise. It etymologically implies "someone who values liberty", but there are competing ideas, some more rational than others, about what actually constitutes "liberty" and for whom.
In the usage of this word on this forum thread, it is practical to make the convenient assumption that we mean the popular contemporary use of "libertarianism" in the United States. This narrows it down to exclude various simplistic / socialist / pedagogical / libertine / etc uses of that term, but the definition still encompasses a great diversity of thought.
As of yet there's no undisputed definitive "libertarian" ideal (not even within the confines of the USA'n popular usage of this term). This thought isn't monopolized by any one political party (some indicate this distinction
via capitalization). Some of the most influential libertarian thinkers have called themselves by more specific terms, including
Objectivists,
Voluntaryists,
FreeMarketeers, Pure/
"Anarcho-" Capitalists, etc.
(2) Boundaries of the definitionSo "libertarianism" is a diverse and polycentric cloud of ideas, but it does have boundaries. I would define such boundaries the same way I define the boundaries of what constitutes science - rigorous rational skepticism.
To be a scientist doesn't mean having perfect knowledge of all things, but seeking the Truth on the basis of empiricism and logic. Likewise, to be a libertarian doesn't mean personifying utopian omnipotence of individualism and liberty, but being utmost skeptical about limitations on individual freedom - in other words to only justify force when it is absolutely essential (ex. in self-defense).
Ideas compete and evolve over time. Aristotle was a great scientist, perhaps the greatest genius of his millennium whose work is known to us today, even though most of his ideas were utterly quashed by others (ex. Pasteur and Newton, who were in turn proven wrong about many things by others too). Even more-so in libertarian thought, old statues are oft demolished without sentiment. In trying to understand libertarian ideas in the modern world, to only study Adam Smith is like flying to the moon with Aristotelian physics; to only study Ayn Rand's fiction is akin to building a nuclear power plant by studying Newton's ventures into alchemy.
From the scientific perspective, some theories have absolute consensus through overwhelming evidence (ex. order of magnitude of the age of the Earth), but on some theories reasonable scientists will still disagree (ex. significance of Anthropogenic Global Warming). (Popular
opinion can lag drastically behind scientific facts, and this gap could even increase in the future.) Likewise, from the libertarian perspective, it seems that reasonable people, upon engaging in rigorous study of political philosophy, will agree on the most fundamental points - the empirically observable Laws that are perpetually shown to be essential to the growth of civilization (and which have been recognized by civilizations to some degree
for thousands of years). These fundamental points of agreement are variously called Individual Rights, Rational Rights, Natural Rights, Natural Law,
Non-Aggression Principle, etc.
Reasonable libertarians still disagree on complicated issues like gradualism, strategic approaches, geopolitics, "intellectual property rights", Parents' Rights, etc. For many of those topics perhaps there just isn't enough economic evidence to form a fully rational conclusion. As in science, we must continue to explore those questions, conduct experiments, debate, etc until a logical answer can be found. And only by the authority of logic can such questions be resolved - this isn't a case of "you can drink pepsi and I can drink tea", but of either you are violating my rights or I am violating yours. Fortunately we are gradually getting closer to the answers.
Ayn Rand,
Barry Goldwater, and many other libertarians were very pro-USA'n in their geopolitics, believing that government force by Uncle Sam is necessary to protect against a much greater aggression of communism.
Milton Friedman was an advocate of certain monetary policies that are based on government force, which he believed were more attainable and a lesser evil than other economic policies which were based on even more government force. Milton also advocated
guaranteed minimum income as an effective gradualist strategy for phasing out the Welfare State. All this still falls within the definition of libertarianism. I'd generously say that Ron Paul squeaks by, as he had expressed his actual positions during his Libertarian Party candidacy in 1988, however since then he has pandered a bit to the closed-borders populists to get (re)elected...
On the other hand there are people who most clearly are not libertarians, who uncritically preach authoritarian solutions and deny overwhelming evidence for the benefits of individual freedom. Tragically most people, even in this relatively economically free country, including most mainstream politicians, fall into this category. Ronald Reagan pragmatically accepted some free market ideas, but his overall opinions were largely based on nationalism, religion, and conservative dogma.
(3) Is my philosophy "libertarian"?I am a rationalist first, and my peculiar philosophy is a consequence of many years of persistent inquiry into various questions, ranging from epistemology to economics to climate science to artificial intelligence to nanotech. I am different from many libertarians on topics like: gradualism, historical analysis,
IP,
abortion,
tribalism,
futurism, contractualism, pro-natalism,
Parents' Rights, ethical judgments on homosexuality, etc. Some libertarians will disagree with me fiercely, but we agree on the main things.
Again, to be a libertarian is to apply empiricism to the realm of politics / economics / law, and thus to be rigorously skeptical of any claims of legitimate use of force. As tens of thousands of pages of my past Internet writings will testify, I pass this criteria with flying colors. I am not an axiomatic
NAP-thumper like some, but all my theories have either been: under NAP, in pursuit of an ever-more rational definition of NAP, or to bring current society closer to NAP.
And obviously nothing about
voluntary charity constitutes the initiation of force.
(4) What is my involvement with charity?Back when my primary interest in life was computer programming / hacking / "big data", I've made good money (with reasonable hope of making
a lot more money down the road) and donated to charity. When my interests changed, I chose to phase out my career to maximize my free time, so that I could spend it on my studies and thoughts. I still donated money, but mostly to political causes (ex.
$1500+ to Ron Paul's campaign, and $100/month to a
libertarian podcast). Aside from that, I've
lived very cheaply and
ate lots of beans.
I'm no virgin when it comes to
mooching off government, but just for a few months to see how it works, and then I took myself off it completely. I even avoid going to the public library, etc. One exception is that I often fill my water jugs at the water fountain at the "public" baseball field at MLK Dr - it would be more efficient if more Tenters would make the effort to do that instead of drinking donated bottled water... And of course we must all use government monopolies in things like waste management, roads, etc.
I've lived in Tent City since March 1, 2013. I mostly eat donated day-old pizza, for which supply somewhat exceeds demand, and decline many "luxuries" (like a propane heater, a better tent / platform, a faster laptop, etc) that Minister Steve and other supporters have offered me. I spend most of my day in the "office" trailer at Tent City, managing its online presence, promoting events, writing letters, communicating with actual and prospective supporters, etc. (I used to also do more to pick up trash at Tent City, but gave up on that exercise in futility, as it only encourages some bums to litter more -
tragedy of the commons...)
It is the overwhelming consensus among Tent City leaders and supporters that I am "pulling my weight" many times over. So if I have "made a lifestyle out of charity", it is more-so as a giver than a receiver.
It should be noted, however, that there is nothing immoral about receiving charity, as long as it is voluntary. Much of the world's greatest literature, art, music, and now even software was funded through voluntary patronage and donations. I've always gladly accepted donations from people who wish to be my patrons, just as I have previously donated to others because I value them and what they do.
The only possible problem with that is if you mislead your patrons about your abilities or intentions, and I've made it a point to be 100% transparent with people about my positions. For example, I told Minister Steve on Day One that I was a Jewish Atheist, libertarian tax resister, and hold many opinions that are
diametrically opposed to his - he didn't have a problem.
(5) What are my motivations for participating in charity?My motivations for being at Tent City are multifaceted. Those who know me will see it as a natural progression of my past efforts at "cheap living",
materialistic minimalism, and thoughts about low-cost gulching /
agorism. It is a stepping stone between what I've done in the past and what I'll do in the future.
I know you'd prefer it if I was a productive little slave, perhaps even a millionaire, living in a huge house I don't need, etc - spending every waking moment thinking about how to make more money to pay you in taxes. But those things don't make me happy - telling the government to eff itself does. Shoveling corporate code all day limits my intellectual potential - living in Tent City I am free to devote most of time to the development of my mind.
Tent City has been a great educational opportunity for me. In practical terms, I've observed how you can set up super-cheap structures, an office with electrical appliances, and even a fully functional shower in the woods. (And this is just scratching the surface - we'd eventually come up with solar / wind energy, much better heating and insulation, groundwater filtering, composting, greenhouse veggies, and, closer to my area of expertise, a censorship-resistant
WWAN with
preemptive caching and
apps, etc, etc, etc.)
And of course Tent City is a great example of how much can be accomplished through cheap living and voluntary charity (in spite of all the government sabotage, of voluntary charity in general, and all the added sabotage specific to Tent City). In ideological terms, as I've said before - TC is the prototype of
the libertarian alternative to the Welfare State!
Perhaps another subconscious reason has been all the times I've been told, on various online message forums, that libertarian claims about voluntary charity are a cop-out; that I'm just a greedy jerk who "got mine" and wants poor people to be starving in the streets. I've also been told that I'm a
privileged white male who doesn't know what it's like to be poor, and therefore my opinions on politics and economics are invalid. Well, here I am - sharing the shower room with the whole village, eating food that would otherwise be garbage, and shivering in an unheated tent! This is my way of demonstrating that I am willing to live among the poorest and most dysfunction people in our society, and to help out.
Back in 2006 (before I've decided the
Free State Project was too collectivist for me, and long before I ran out of coder money),
I wrote:
Water is not a right, and neither are food, clothing, heat, shelter, Internet access, or friendship, but I call upon everyone to feel responsible when your neighbors (within, say, 20 minute travel distance) or employees go without those things. Charity, especially the "teach a man to fish" kind of Charity, is essential to Liberty. Failure of Charity was what gave birth to socialism in the first place, and now to get Liberty back we must prove ourselves worthy of it!
I call upon the Free Staters to fight not only for Liberty, but for voluntary Charity as well; not for the sake of altruism but for the sake of New Hampshire's future. Reducing its welfare load is an essential step to making it the Free State! According to those 2003 numbers, there were 6,321 (0.483%) families and 15,061 (1.15%) individual recipients of welfare in NH, which is pretty low but not low enough. Many of those people don't need a check every month that traps them in the indignity of dependence and sets a bad example to their children, they need things that the government can never provide - friends to encourage them, help them deal with their personal issues, and help getting and keeping a job that offers an opportunity for education and growth...
In 2011,
I wrote (and the rest of that thread is good reading too):
The cost of shelter for the poor is greatly inflated in the present day by government intervention into every single step of any building's life-cycle, from zoning to labor negotiations to property taxes. Programs like rent assistance and the religion of equality have destroyed the market for more economical housing, and the welfare state has stifled the potential for much more cost-effective and innovative private charity. I'm sure Walmart, GE, Toyota, Invista, and other companies could come up with plenty of innovative ideas if only market circumstances would allow.
Let them [the poor] live in capsule hotels, heated outdoor tents, or whatever other solutions can be found by unrestrained scientific quest to optimize efficiency.
Just three months ago,
I wrote:
My ideal would be to see Tent Cities where everyone can pull their own weight working at least part-time, but currently this isn't the case. [...] At present, our Tent City relies heavily on a network of local volunteers who donate food, bottled water, and other survival essentials. [...] We also accept financial donations (ex. via PayPal and BitCoin), which go to things like [propane].
Voluntary charity is not only far more moral than the Welfare State, but it is also far more efficient, and it averts the danger of centralized power inevitably being misused to tyrannical ends.
Some people help the poor for religious or altruistic reasons, but there are also rational and selfish reasons to do so. Homelessness and extreme poverty are problems that the free market needs to solve in order to flourish, and people who help solve these problems should get all the recognition and respect they deserve. I'll comply with any donor's request to remain anonymous, but I encourage them not to. We need to build a culture where voluntary philanthropy is valued, and where building a Tent City gets you more respect than driving a Lamborghini - then that will be the death of the Welfare State, and all other Statism along with it!
Cost-effective solutions to poverty often call for ingenious technological solutions. Like Howard Roark agreeing to architect a housing project for the poor in exchange for nothing but an agreement to retain creative control, because the economic design challenge fascinated him, many competent individuals will find perfectly selfish motivations to voluntarily help the poor. Rational people will help eliminate poverty - not because they see themselves as "their brothers' keepers", but because they love innovation, efficiency, and freedom!
I hope this removes all erroneous perceptions about libertarianism being somehow incompatible with charity, or of me being a "bad libertarian" for crossing paths with Tent City.
I will try to answer all questions, in order asked, over the next few days. If I miss something, please send me a private message (or msg me
on Facebook, etc).
Poll