[eikaterine]

Someone is always defining your freedom though, in any situation where you come in contact with other people. If you don't have a government, your freedom is defined by people who are stronger than you, financially, physically, militarily, whatever.

[Gormo]

And if you do have a government, the same is true, but your set of options is reduced, and the power distance is far greater.

[_delirium]

I would argue the opposite; in cases where your freedom is decided by network-effects rather than a more "flat" playing field within a governmental system, your set of options is reduced, and the power distance is far greater. Burbclaves isn't a path to freedom.

Even otherwise-market-oriented Hayek argued that to some extent, in arguing for why the state should provide national defense and a social safety net. In his view, it increased individual freedom for there to be a large protective umbrella that handled defense and the basic safety-net, within which individuals could move freely. Otherwise those services are provided by tribalist groupings, which set up numerous boundaries and entanglements diminishing scope for unencumbered individual decision-making: society becomes more about those groups, acting as collectives, with less of a role for individual action.

[Gormo]

But the government is just another "tribalist grouping"; one that's been given reach that extends beyond what would otherwise be its natural limitations. I don't understand the common mindset of the government being somehow 'special', and not shaped by the same influences and subject to the same failure modalities as every other institution in society.

Human society itself is a "network effect", and the ability to form connections within that network without artificial constraint is the definition of freedom.

Society is defined by what you're calling "boundaries and entanglements", or what less cynical people might call "well-defined communities and relationships"; there's never room for completely unencumbered individual decision-making: individuals are always constrained by the laws of nature and the existence of those other people with whom they share a common social space. Maximizing individual liberty means maximizing individuals' ability to choose whether to participate in a particular social context, whether to opt out and go it alone, or whether to attempt to forge their own new social context. Flattening down all of the boundaries and subjecting all social contexts to monopolistic rules only reduces choice and makes one social context dominate over all others - this is hardly a path to freedom.

I admit, though, that I've got no idea what a "burbclave" is - I understand it's a concept from Snow Crash, which, regrettably, I have yet to read. Could you elaborate on this?

[_delirium]

I don't really think governments are particularly unique; they're just one kind of territorially based large organization that ideally has democratic control, and ideally from which you cannot be expelled. Even though it's true that "the USA as a whole" is itself a group, I would much rather be able to move as an individual within the USA as this background container, than have to deal with a shifting web of alliances with ethnic/religious/corporate groups for my defense and safety net.

I think Hayek more or less gets it right that to maximize individualism, rather than the coalition-of-tribalist-groups type society, you need a background "container" of sorts that provides basic physical safety to everyone in a territory. Once national security and a basic safety net are taken care of, now individuals do not fear being killed or starving to death, and can make more rational, less fear-based choices about which groups within that territory to further associate with. For example, I can choose to attend a church if I believe in it, but I won't worry that if I cut ties with the church they'll cut me off and I'll starve or be shot.

"Burbclaves" in Snow Crash are essentially city-states set up by companies which operate their own defense/laws/etc., in the absence of traditional governments. If one asks, what would replace governments if we abolished them, I think the answer would be something like that: super-powerful homeowners' associations with weapons, which would grow into de-facto new governments. I don't think that would really be superior to the current governments.

[Gormo]

> than have to deal with a shifting web of alliances with ethnic/religious/corporate groups for my defense and safety net.

You already have to do this, do you not? Almost all of the elements of your life which you rely on for sustenance and safety are things which you acquire within the context of the specific network of relationships you participate in. The state doesn't feed you, house you, or otherwise care for you; it certainly doesn't provide you with anything higher up on Maslow's pyramid. Your experience of life includes participation in specific social contexts, and acquisition of happiness and security within the relationships therein established, no matter what.

I think that your mistake here is to anthropomorphise the abstractions of "ethnic groups", "corporations", etc. and to view these as something other than coalitions of individuals.

You're seeing civil society as a radio-button selection from which you can select one of a limited number of predefined institutional models, rather than to see it as a free-form text entry field within which you can create whatever network of relationships with particular people you mutually desire.

> maximize individualism, rather than the coalition-of-tribalist-groups type society, you need a background "container" of sorts that provides basic physical safety to everyone in a territory

A system of law, rooted in the custom and shared expectations of the participants and used by them as a means of mediating their social relations, is that "container". An organized group of people is just another group of people, and vesting control of the system of law in the hands of such a group actually inhibits its ability to serve as a mediative tool for and by the members of society; the law itself simply becomes an instrument in the hands of one particular "tribalist group".

Thinking of all law as positive law promulgated in top-down fashion by the state is a key deficiency of the modern mindset.

> now individuals do not fear being killed or starving to death, and can make more rational, less fear-based choices about which groups within that territory to further associate with

Of course, in reality, people indeed do continue to fear being killed or starving to death, because these risks still exist, and activities of the institutional state are motivated by these fears just as much as the activities of any other social institution.

And, with the state, you've very much created an institution for which cutting ties will lead to your being "cut off", likely to "starve or be shot".

In the former scenario, you at least had a pluralistic, multi-polar civil society filled with other institutions you could turn to, and the freedom create new ones, if you were "cut off". If the monopolist state "cuts you off", you've got no recourse.

> I don't think that would really be superior to the current governments.

I'd argue that a large number of smaller governments is superior to a small number of large ones, and that a situation in which people can establish new governments and sever their attachments to old ones, both with relative ease, is superior to one in which they cannot, or can only do so with great difficulty.

If absolute individual autonomy were universal, the situation could reasonably be described as 7+ billion independent governments; but we wouldn't tend to describe it that way, because we attach certain connotations of institutional rigidity to the notion of "government" which adhere less and less as social contexts become smaller and more organic.

[_delirium]

> Of course, in reality, people indeed do continue to fear being killed or starving to death

Really? I live in Denmark, and do not fear either of those things. I suppose there is a small chance of being murdered, but not a large one. And even in the worst case where I somehow was completely unable to work and suffered severe disability, I would be entitled to basic housing, food, and medical care, because those are considered basic rights of all residents. That's what I mean by a basic framework for society that removes that fear element, by guaranteeing to everyone minimum physical safety and sustenance. Once that fear is removed, people can make voluntary and rational decisions on how to interact with each other, which are less coerced than in the case where it's an "offer" to do X or starve.

To me, that maximizes individual freedom and decision-making capability. Essentially the only downside is that if I make a lot of money, more of it will go to taxes than would if I lived in the United States. But paying some taxes doesn't seem like a large imposition on freedom to me, especially in comparison to the gains.

[illuminate]

"And if you do have a government, the same is true, but your set of options is reduced"

I'm glad some of those options are not available to others, yes.