Gotta Laugh When Some Complain About Their Liberty Being Violated

It's never a good thing when libertarianism is discarded, such as this judge apparently did in changing a baby's first name against the parents will. But I can't muster much sympathy for most people whining about this case, because nearly every other aspect of their politics involves imposing a myriad of other views on everyone. It's rather amusing but also sad to watch the ignorance and hypocrisy of statists as they get a taste of their own medicine.

Libertarianism Would Have Saved Trayvon Martin's Life

Putting libertarianism to practice would have prevented the death of Trayvon Martin, as Robert Wenzel notes in an excellent post (he also has a follow-up). Obviously, there was an aggressor in the altercation. Many people are convinced it was Geroge Zimmerman, but such could not be proven. Rather, from my casual observation, just about all the evidence seems to line up with Geroge's story-line. And that means Trayvon Martin was, as best we can tell, the aggressor.

Far to many don't even seem able to acknowledge this a possibility, no doubt because of a strange campaign that portrayed Trayvon as an innocent kid merely trying to walk home with iced tea and a bag of Skittles, only to be killed by a racist wanna-be cop. Yet even if George was the aggressor, unlikely as that is, libertarianism would have prevented needless death and injuries.

Why? Because libertarianism is non-aggression, exactly the principle that someone violated that unfortunate night. That's why I find libertarianism such a meaningful and pressing issue: tragic events like this are happening all the time because people as individuals or groups, including and especially governments, are committing acts of aggression. Humans will never cease all aggression - that is a utopian dream - but I know improvements are possible, particularly in reducing institutionalized aggression (the government).

Let our energies in reaction to this case be channeled towards decreasing aggression, not increasing it, as many are wont to do.

Online Gaming as a Laboratory for Politics and Economics

I just finished listening to the January 15th episode of the Peter Schiff Show. He was talking about the game Minecraft and its different modes, and suggested there should be a socialist and capitalist mode. This actually sounds like a great idea. Online gaming could have great potential in partial experimentation with different political philosophies.

I imagine the game should have several worlds to choose from, with each attempting to represent a relatively simple economy based on different rules. One world could be called “socialism”, another “democracy”, another “democratic republic”, and another “capitalism”, etc. In other words, the extremes of pure socialism and pure free markets along with some other major systems that falls between those ranges.

Players could get employment or run their own businesses, receive paychecks, purchase things, pay taxes, follow regulations, run for political office and be elected by their fellow players, etc. as would happen in the real world the game seeks to represent. Some or all of the actors in the game could be real people.

The possibilities are limitless. If the game was, professionally designed, made interesting for players of all ages, accessible from many platforms, and marketed correctly, I think it could be an effective experiment with many thousands of voluntary, dedicated players.

Obviously this sort of project would require quite a few resources to get off the ground. Probably, the game would need to be made available for free to attract the most players possible. I’m not sure who would take up this idea and fund it, but it’s interesting to think about.

In a fair battle between capitalism, socialism, and other systems that fall in between, I don’t think it would take long for players to overwhelmingly pick capitalism. And perhaps that choice would have helpful implications for us in the real world.