Doug Miller writes about some articles I linked to and the general ideas of "Hive Minds" and the philosophy of Libertarianism. Doug Miller is very well read with regards to science fiction, and I'm sure other things as well, and he refers to The Golden Transcendence, a novel by John Wright about these ideas.#

In contrast to other utopian views of the future common in much current science fiction, Wright's vision is of an unabashedly Libertarian human society. Throughout the three books, we get some tantalizing glimpses at the back story of how humanity reached this state through the 10,000+ years between today and the setting of the novels. Along the way we encounter several group mind entities, many of which are remnants of a period of human history where most, if not all humans were part of a planet-spanning group consciousness.

The crux of the interest of the book is to show how even the "most Libertarian" society can be come corrupt based on the explosion of influence, through wealth and prestige, that can come into the hands of a group that seeks to maintain it.

When Phaethon sets out to build a starship capable of carrying out his dreams of exploration and colonization, he is repeatedly oppressed and thwarted by a quasi-governmental group called the College of Hortators. Although the Hortators have no officially sanctioned power in the society of the Golden Oecumene, the enormous societal prestige and wealth allow them incredible societal influence. Indeed, they're able to eventually hound Phaethon into near ruin by voting to ostracize him from society - with the added stipulation that any member of the Golden Oecumene that so much as speaks to him will share this ostracism. Phaethon has broken no laws, or harmed anyone. His only offense is to hold views that have the potential to reduce the influence and power of the Hortators by changing the status quo - and so they choose to attempt to coerce him into "proper behavior." This part of the plot of Wright's novels illustrates one of the primary concerns I've always had with Libertarian philosophy.

It is hard to reconcile this with Libertarian philosophy because I have not read the book so I don't know the circumstances that would be too mundane and detailed for Doug to impart; and, because it is so obviously not Libertarian.

To believe it just and Liberty-loving to ostracize someone for a dream that does not demerit your Life, Liberty, or Property is certainly a sign of someone who does not believe in Liberty. What this seems to suggest to me is that the story is more about how a society could develop that seems like a Libertarian society--either because it once was or it has the trappings of one (people don't disagree enough to be coerced so it seems like it doesn't happen.)

The moral being that Liberty is something that must always before fought for and must never forget what can happen when you allow one group to "vote" (by any method a la government or dollars) to depose another of their Life, Liberty, or Property. Just like in the country I live in, America, there was once a value of Liberty and self-determination, but it has been replaced with Servitude, mob rule, and a socialistic nanny State.

There is, however, and issue behind this story that I think is the egg of Doug's concern with Libertarianism. So, we say that people will watch out for themselves and because trade is good for both parties it will increase. Suppose then, that we say a Libertarian society will operate by people voluntarily agreeing to some form of identification which is then used to indicate "I trust this person in business" or "I don't trust this person in business." What then, if the people who manage this form of identification (or a well respected and trusted person/group) puts an "untrustworthy" mark on a person for no valid reason. (Valid reasons would be crimes, fraud, etc; the idea is that you put up economic embargoes rather than murdering or enslaving people.)

Supposing that happened, then the form of identification itself would be untrustworthy or a previously well-trusted group would suddenly be seen as less-trustworthy. The system corrects itself because it is open, and if it were not open it would not have ever been adopted. For this reason, I have trouble finding a reason why such a situation would be irreparable in a society that truly valued Liberty and embraced Libertarianism.

Comments and refutation welcome.

(Note: I am curious about how the hive minds in the books entered into. I plan on reading a book in this series and eventually reporting back.)