Friday, March 25, 2005

Kyrgyzstan says no to "Libertarianism"
I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don’t know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer by cause I

I wanna be anarchy !
--Sex Pistols
......Seems the Johnny Rottens of Kyrgzstan had their 'Holiday in the Sun' today...
Fri Mar 25, 2005 06:44 AM ET

BISHKEK (Reuters) - Kyrgyzstan's opposition, a day after snatching power in a lightning coup in the ex-Soviet state, on Friday named a new acting president and won almost immediate -- and vital -- support from Russia.

The government of veteran President Askar Akayev, who has fled, collapsed on Thursday after thousands of protesters stormed the main administration building in Bishkek, dragging the Central Asian city into an orgy of looting.

"God forbid anybody would have to have such a revolution," Felix Kulov, freed from jail by supporters on Thursday and appointed acting interior minister, told state television. "It was a rampage of looting, just like in Iraq."

At least one man was shot dead during the looting overnight and 31 police officers were wounded, some seriously, he said. Gunshots rang out throughout the night in the city of 800,000.

I wonder why a decimated government would result in violence and looting? The application of Libertarian thought fails again-the people chose a new government immediately.

I wonder how well they are going to bring all those looters to civil court?

Don't get me wrong, I'm down like a clown for the democratic revolution, but it is wise to note that the absence of a centralized government always results in chaos.


Lisa said...

I don't understand your allusion to libertarianism here. If we are going to discuss libertarianism, you need to understand what libertarianism really is. It is not about being a destructive ararchist, but about life, liberty and property.

Are you suggesting the protesters who brought down the government were libertarians?

"I wonder why a decimated government would result in violence and looting? The application of Libertarian thought fails again-the people chose a new government immediately.

I wonder how well they are going to bring all those looters to civil court?"

A libertarian society is not going to pop up like a mushroom in instances of political strife! We're talking about a former Soviet state at that! Change and progress, to be effective and lasting, is a gradual process. People are not going to be 'enlightened' overnight, but must gradually be shown the errors of their ways.

And of course looting and chaos will result when a government falls in this manner - a "power vacuum" emerges and theives see a chance for unjust gain, and this includes both your common criminal and the politicians and dictators.

Once again, the supposed fact that most people don't want a society without a central state does not thereby validate their choice. Apparently most Germans and many non-Germans besides, supported Hitler - that doesn't make them right!

Shamrocks! said...

Take your 'you need to understand' quips back to your own site. The reason I brought up libertarianism in the context of this revolution, was because there was a complete lack of a centralized government resulting in mob rule and chaos.

Libertarians want a decimated central government, right? And Libetarians claim that this would not result in chaos? This is just another an example, just a little sample of how futile this ideology is in its application.

Speaking of soviet states:

"People are not going to be 'enlightened' overnight, but must gradually be shown the errors of their ways."

Sounds libertarian to me. What did you have in mind? Re education camps?

I see that you agree that a power vacuum will emerge in the absence of a centralized government. That's quite a concession.

Invoking Nazi Germany to take yet another shot against democracy is absurd.

Ian Scott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ian Scott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ian Scott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jay said...

With any luck, they'll elect a police state similar to the one they just brought down. Of course there was no looting or "anarchy" back in the day, and in theory they had a vote but for some reason they decided to push the "fuck off" button.

Why would that be?
What would make them decide to overthrow the government in the first place? Akayev got 95% percent of the votes at one point did he not? Isn't a strong democratic government supposed to be the highest of values?

Lisa said...


As you have probably noticed, I have posted this comment over at Renegades as I was unable to access the comment section yesterday here.

I include it here for the sake of consistency.

Like I said in my previous comment, I never at meant any ill-will toward you and indeed, you should take it as a sign of respect that I have spent as much time responding to your arguments as I have. And I will say it again, with all due respect, you do not at all seem to understand what I am trying to say - clearly I don't understand what you are trying to say either.

Perhaps if you settled down a little and were not so quick to take offense, we might perhaps get to the root of the disagreement and thus have a meaningful discussion. As it is right now, you're talking about oranges and I, apples.

You say that the majority of people don't support libertarianism, and that we need a central government to prevent chaos. I say then that the majority of people do not respect my property and freedom if they support government.

You also say that libertarians and people in general are not barbaric, but your reasoning is such that you are committed to that exact view. After all, if people are generally peaceful, then why is government needed? Cannot people be trusted to organize their themselves, through voluntary and binding contracts, which includes setting up effective security measures to deal with thieves and murderers?

As for these small violent elements, well, we're talking about centralized government here as far as I am concerned. The state is a favorite haven for criminals; through organized coercion and violence, they rule the people.

The ballot box is also no indication that most people support the government. In fact, more power is given to fools than would otherwise be possible. And your post citing Kyrgyzstan does nothing to prove that libertarianism would result in chaos and also does nothing to prove your point that the "absence of a centralized government always results in chaos." Further, there is no indication that the majority of people there supported the regime change or indeed centralized government. Perhaps the majority, over time, would support a free society - we're so used to government intervention and rule that we have become complacent. We also have little means to protect and organize ourselves against the mighty state which has the monopoly over defense. This is another reason I fear governments, which are made up of self-proclaimed guardians of the 'collective interest', whatever the hell that is.

And as for my comment about 'enlightenment', I clearly was not suggesting we set up 're education camps.' If you have considered my previous posts and comments, this should have been clear. I only meant that people cannot change their views overnight and that if they value peace and want a good life, they will learn by example and reference to reality and logic - further, if crooks are prevented from getting a free ride, then they will have to play fair or suffer the consequences of their actions. If people were to understand that government makes us all poorer, then most of us would prefer a libertarian society. However, this is all really besides the point - governments are inherently unjust and for that reason, I do not support the state. I don't support legalized plunder. Social custom and majority preference is not morality. People are free to think and prefer what they will, but not at the expense of another's well being.

I brought up the fascist example in the context of your Kyrgyzstan post for two reasons. First, I doubt you would say that Nazi's were right because they had the support of 'the majority.' However, at the same time, you keep bringing up the will of the people as the sanction of government, democratic or otherwise. Well, if people can be entrusted to choose their government, then clearly they should be able to govern themselves, through voluntary membership, without the might arm of the state. A 'power vacuum' exists because people are not given the right to govern themselves and accomstomed to centralized control - it is my view that power should not be centralized, but dispersed throughout in order to prevent tyrannies. That is to say, give power back to the individual - free him from the shackles of government.

Centralized governments are made up of the very people that you and I would find a threat Patrick. And yes, some governments are more just than others, but in essence, corrupt by definition. And the kind of voluntary membership I would like to see happening does not match democractic elections in the form that we know them. My membership and vote should in on way limit the rights of others.

Please read my post again and seriously consider what I am trying to argue. Better yet, read some of the authors I recommended - they say it so much better than I.

Regards to you Patrick and best wishes.

Thank you also for putting us back on your blogroll.

Shamrocks! said...


I don't know what to tell you if thought what they had before was a democratic government.

But look at this way: If you want to say that there was a failure of democracy (if you want to call it that), it's fine. The end result was a failure of the non-state as well.

While democracy has more than enough success stories, libertarianism has one 'perfect' dream without one livable reality.

Shamrocks! said...


I'll state one more time what I think in the fewest amount of words possible:

I think most people are generally law abiding and good natured. However, there are elements of any one society that will use an absence of a centralized authority to take control- this is true in theory and application. I'm not making any negative comments of people in general or libertarians with that statement.

I will give you this, though: Despite their best intentions (similar to the government's intentions), *some* people don't do the right thing. Without a centralized government, the chances of rectifying wrongs against each other are low.

I'm thinking that voluntary and binding contracts will be of little use when actors will be of varying strength, and without an centralized authority, the chances of seeing anything enforced will be very low.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Nazis never had a majority. The nationalists gave them a coalition majority in the bundestag. That's a technical point however, when the pre election period and the day's government and population were overwhelmed with the threats of violence by the Nazis and a cowered press.

It's pretty ridiculous in this age that I have write defences of democracy..

Anyways, I think government can be very flawed, but I don't think the solution is to kill our potential vehicle for productive teamwork.