(Without some automatic and economically sound fee adjustment mechanism, a workaround would be to have a governing body like the international commission that defines and updates (by voting) the Metric System: with no legal power, but with effective moral power derived from competence and representativity. But try telling that to the libertarians...)
What makes you think libertarians would object to that? Our problem is the initiation of force. Our core value is the NonAgression Principle. Obviously society needs order and structure. Obviously there needs to be rules. We just want those rules to be enforced by imposing opportunity costs and to reserve violence for defensive purposes only. Nothing in your workaround violates that.
maybe Prof. Jorge think that libertarian means anarchist. were it was the same, we shouldnt make 2 word out of it isnt ?
btw : price rises another 10 usd wow... im impressed
This is debated commonly among anarcho-capitalists. We are so different ideologically from anarcho-socialists (the original anarchist, most common type, and the ones most people think bout when they hear the word "anarchist") that it may not even be helpful to use the word at all.
If "anarchist" means "no rulers" or "no monopoly State", then I qualify, but not if it means "no leaders" or no hierarchies at all, then, well that's just stupid.
I'm a hard core free market dude who opposes aggression and coercion. Some day hopefully there will be enough of us that we can get our own non-hyphenated word.
Most people calling themselves 'Libertarian' or 'Anarchist' have no idea what they mean themselves, no wonder no one else does.
I mean, their poster girl Ayn hates Libers and Anarcaps with a passion, I quote:
"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.)"
