The Dollar Vigilante

Surviving & Prospering During and After the Dollar Collapse

The Dollar Vigilante
  • Home
  • What is TDV
  • Who is TDV
  • Blog
  • Subscribe
  • FAQ
  • Contact
  • Login
    • Sign in


      Don’t have a account? Sign up for FREE

      Lost Password

      Create new account


      Use only a-z,A-Z,0-9, dash and underscores.

      Do you have an account? Log in

Whatever Happened To Galt’s Gulch Chile?

December 7, 2015 by Jeff Berwick 153 Comments

Shares

Many may recall the libertarian-fashioned community being planned in Chile called “Galt’s Gulch Chile” (GGC). If you’ve been reading here at TDV for years, you know that I had very high hopes for it and was the largest cheerleader of the project as I thought I was a partner in it and had 50% control of the project (I later found out I didn’t due to numerous nefarious, fraudulent acts that weren’t uncovered until well after the fact – in fact it has taken the last year to even figure out how it was pulled off).

What most don’t know is the sordid story of how so many investors in the project were wiped out, with one even now living in his car with his family… and the one person who put $0 into the project and masterminded the scam is hunkered down with weapons and living on the property that others bought!

It is an insane story that may finally be close to having a just outcome after years of battle.

The stories are enough to fill a book.

Cathy Cuthbert, a leading member of the GGC Recovery Team of investors and buyers into the project had this to say, “Not a week goes by that I don’t hear from at least one GGC investor or former employee who had his savings wiped out and his life totally disrupted by the mastermind and conman of GGC, Ken Johnson. I’ve worked essentially full-time for over a year on GGC, and it’s for those people that I’ve done it.”

So far it has been a true tragedy of injustice… until this week.

Finally, after more than a year of sifting through all the sordid details of incompetence, chicanery, lies, deceit and fraud, criminal charges have been filed in Chile against those involved.

  • Palomba et al v. Kenneth Dale Johnson, Mario Del Real, Pamela Del Real, Alexander Del Real. Juzgado Garantia de Curacaví docket number: RUC 1510039752-5. This first case is for fraud and a violation of the Urbanism and Construction Act, the sale of a non-existent real estate development. Twenty-two investors have filed this charge against Johnson and the Del Real family.
  • Kirley v. Johnson. 4° Juzgado Garantia de Santiago docket number: RUC 1510039858-0. The second case is for a second violation of the Urbanism and Construction Act, selling residential lots in an unzoned real estate development without obtaining a bond or insurance to protect the investor.

Each violation of the Urbanism and Construction Act is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. With a felony conviction, Johnson would be deported to the United States after his Chilean prison time, where no doubt several federal and state government agencies will welcome him.

  • Kirley v. Ramirez and Pamela Del Real. 7° Juzgado Garantia de Santiago docket number: RUC 1510039686-3. The third case is for contempt of court. GGC investor Josh Kirley was granted an injunction against any sale or agreement concerning GGC land and associated water rights. Guillermo Ramirez, the Chilean who sold the farm property to GGC, and GGC General Manager Pamela Del Real made an agreement about the water rights on the farm property, a clear violation of Kirley’s injunction.

Contempt of court is punishable by up to five years in prison.

Here are the mugshots of the four main characters being charged:

Mugshots of Those Involved With Galts Gulch Chile - Ken Johnson - Mario Del Real - Pamela Del Real - Guillermo Ramirez

“These three cases are a significant step in recovering our investment and obtaining justice,” said Tom Baker, GGC investor and member of The GGC Recovery Team. “They are only part of a wider case. We expect to bring more charges in the future.”

Almost all of the buyers and investors into GGC – 73 families paid in over $10 million – are libertarian and as such they have been attacked publicly as rich, greedy misanthropes who were so hopelessly naive as to think they were escaping the government by moving to Chile.

Being libertarians, many of GGC’s investors were against the use of government courts to correct the injustices and receive the property they paid for. But what they found was that there simply was no other way to regain their stolen property without doing so.

“We tried to negotiate with Johnson for his exit from the project for well over 18 months,” reports Baker. “He just wouldn’t budge. Most of us don’t want to go the criminal court route, but we were left with no choice. To let Johnson, Del Real and company get away with this fraud would expose other victims in the future.”

A 130 page forensic report detailing Ken Johnson’s activities with GGC has also been submitted to the FBI in the US where he is expected to be deported upon conviction in Chile.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE WHO BOUGHT OR INVESTED IN GGC?

As mentioned above, one of the main themes of those who have mocked the GGC investors has been that they are “rich” libertarians and therefore, by those who dislike or are jealous of those with wealth, don’t deserve any pity.

The reality is that numerous lives have been destroyed by the actions of Ken Johnson and the others charged. While it is hard to calculate my losses, as some of it was in lost time over the last three years dealing with the problems, it is well into the six digits and quite easily in the 7 digits.  But, I now solely work to recover the project for the buyers and investors.

But, the most noteworthy, of a long list, is an initial investor into GGC who prefers to remain anonymous. This investor believed so deeply in GGC that he sunk his whole life savings into an equity investment. He currently supports his wife, their toddler and infant by doing odd jobs like shoveling snow and cutting lawns. They alternate between living on relatives’ couches and sleeping in their car.

Another investor, who was instrumental in contacting other GGC investors and beginning the recovery process, passed away last September, well before seeing her dream of a libertarian community coming to fruition. Her husband told us that the stress of dealing with GGC contributed to her passing.

Then there’s the Phillips family, who are anything but wealthy. They used the proceeds from an insurance settlement to buy into the GGC farm program, hoping for some extra income from the dividends. Needless to say, they are still waiting.

DETAILS OF THE ENTIRE, SORDID GGC MESS

The investors and buyers at GGC have banded together to form what they call a GGC Recovery team headed up by Tom Baker. They have compiled a laundry list of bizarre, insane stories and information on the entire affair at http://ggcrecovery.com. It’s worth checking out for the humor alone as they try to put a horrible situation into the lightest context possible… and given how ridiculous the entire affair has been it is easy to put it in a comedic light… even despite how many have suffered to date.

To show how crazy it has been, here is just a very short list of some of the unbelievable things Johnson did at GGC aside from selling land to people and then not giving it to them:

  • Kept indentured servants. Did you think that indentured servitude was extinct in our modern world? You would be wrong, as Johnson practiced his own version at GGC. When the Recovery Team took over the farm, they found that two 23-year-olds were living in squalor there, without money due to not having been paid by Johnson, and without transportation. Johnson would show up from time-to-time to bring them food.
  • Gambled with GGC money at Viña Del Mar casinos. Libertarian songstress Tatiana Moroz exposed this habit, but she’s not the only one who told the GGC Recovery Team that Johnson took our money to the gambling tables. Two other employees witnessed it.
  • Dug two illegal wells. The farm manager was able to convince Johnson that the farm needed at least one deep well to have enough water for irrigation through the summer. Johnson put an inexperienced man in charge of the project. Instead of digging a deep well, the guy had two shallow wells drilled. Great. Two more shallow wells to add to the 53 others on the property. And they did not follow the regulations for opening a new well, so the wells were declared illegal by the Chilean Water authorities.
  • Cut down environmentally protected trees. Just after the second real estate closing, Johnson had a marketing event at the farm. To impress potential investors, he rented a couple of backhoes to grade a road up in the hills. In the process of grading, several protected trees were cut down. What did the tree hugging Johnson do? He had the workers bury the stumps to hide the evidence, of course.
  • Fed salmon to his dog with GGC money while employees went unpaid. Johnson used to buy salmon and cook it for his dog. He bought a five-foot chest freezer to store the salmon, paid for from GGC funds. At the same time, dog lover Johnson wouldn’t feed a litter of five puppies abandoned on the farm. Two of them starved to death.

But, besides all that and literally dozens of other sordid/bizarre stories, the biggest injustice is that 70+ buyers and investors put more than $10 million into GGC to build a new life in Chile and Ken Johnson, who put in $0 and pilfered and/or wasted millions of their money is the only person currently living on the property!

We contacted Tom Baker to ask him about progress in getting the land back that investors and buyers purchased.  Here is what he had to say:

Our progress may not have been quick, but it’s been steady. When we started, we didn’t have an investor list. We didn’t even know how much money Johnson had taken in. Bit by bit, we were able to piece together exactly what happened.

This was a classic affinity fraud. Johnson sought out libertarian celebrities to use them to get us to open our wallets. He got libertarians to join the GGC sales team. He talked about wanting to do business on a handshake basis, as many libertarians do. He even signed his emails with “to your freedoms.”

Once we all understood that GGC was an affinity fraud, and we joined forces, we made fantastic progress. It will take time, and it will be expensive, but we have to pursue criminal charges to reboot the project and prevent Johnson and his accomplices from preying on anyone else.

Our evidence is solid. The law is clear. We’ve got great lawyers. We’ll prevail.

THE FUTURE OF GGC

GGC has been a nightmare for all involved, including myself. A year ago I wrote of my deep depression and even suicidal thoughts as it began to become clear that we had all been hoodwinked.

It has taken more than a year’s work by numerous investors and buyers to untangle the unbelievable web that Ken Johnson had spun and has cost a lot of money that a lot of people didn’t have to pay lawyers to figure out exactly what had been done to them.

Chile has an opportunity to show foreign investors that they have some ability to guard against fraud through their legal system. Numerous criminal and civil cases in progress now, which lawyers expect will all succeed, could and should result in the investors and buyers recovering the land they paid for.

When that happens GGC could actually go on to be a rousing success. The land is some of the most beautiful and well-positioned land in all of the world (that’s why the project attracted so many buyers and investors) and if this entire mess can be unraveled in the courts we may finally, after many years of struggle, be able to say GGC is a success.

Some of the buyers/investors and their families will finally be able to move onto the land currently being occupied by the very person who stole it from them.

Ayn Rand could never have imagined just how a development based on her fictional novel could have become an even more sordid and unbelievable tale than the book itself… so far it has.

But it isn’t over yet.

[You can read more about it at and keep up-to-date on events at GGCRecovery.com and also check out this article by buyer and GGC Recovery team-member, Cathy Cuthbert, “Caught in a Fraud? Blame the Fed”]

Shares

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • jimha

    Sounds like naivety to me. Sophisticated investors??? Want to buy some land. LOL. Who in their right mind pays for a piece of property that has no existing title.(subdivided lot titles)

    • SkepticTank – flâneur heureux

      “Who in their right mind pays for a piece of property that has no existing title”
      Libertarians. They live in a completely delusional world of their own making. They were the perfect marks for these con artists. Anyone who believes that a world without regulations can work, would believe that this land is spitting gold coins up out of the ground.

      • Richard_thunderbay

        If there is no need to fear negative consequences, it’s obviously in someone’s rational self-interest to take the money and run in circumstances such as this.

        • Adriana Pena

          I think that the operating mantra is “it is immoral to allow suckers to keep their money”

      • KIR

        I do. I’m in my right mind. During the course of my due dilligence, I spent 6 months and tens of thousands of dollars paying lawyers and investigators in 2 countries.

        • Dave Burke

          Clearly your diligence wasn’t good enough.

      • mary

        Oh yes, you’re exactly right. No one else in the history of the world was ever defrauded in a real estate scam expect those gullible libertarians.

    • CalvinballPro

      “A fool and his money are soon parted.” As true today as always.

  • Bob

    Wow horrible thing to happen. Have to
    Say Jeff was all in on getting people into that place I remember endless videos about fast the land was selling and don’t miss out. Damn what a total f#*k up that place is.

    • steve

      funny how that doesn’t get mentioned

      • robt

        Read the first paragraph of the article.

  • Gabriel Scheare

    The legal impossibility for GGC to get its desired subdivisions approved made it doomed from the very beginning. We got ours for Fort Galt done right off the bat without any problems because we chose a location that wasn’t environmentally protected the way that the area around Santiago is. Besides the fact that its a desert for most of the year, the legal quagmire of environmental protectionism makes the Santiago area a very bad place for such a project. We’ve had a much easier time down here by Valdivia.

    • Jeffersonian

      When I heard about GGC I researched Chilean water law and came to the conclusion that the water was not and would not ever be there to make this community work. Then I read about the water restrictions members would have and this confirmed my earlier conclusion. Best wishes to those who were defrauded.

    • Dave Burke

      Gabriel, as a Libertarian, can you tell me why you moved to a socialist country with strict gun laws, government healthcare, and a maximum personal income tax rate of 40% that kicks in at an incredibly low $124,173, as opposed to 39.5% at $415,051 in the USA? That’s pretty much the complete opposite of everything Libertarianism stands for.

      • Gabriel Scheare

        I don’t restrict myself to any one country. As an anarchist, any amount of government is too much. Chile is great for real estate development and investment as well as tourism so that’s what I’m doing down here. The trick is to spread yourself out over numerous different jurisdictions of convenience to take advantage of the best things each place has to offer while avoiding the worst.

      • Gabriel Scheare

        I’m not just a libertarian, I’m an anarchist… so there’s no such thing as a state that’s in alignment with my values. No one country has the solution. I have to spread myself out over multiple countries of convenience to take advantage of their advantages while also avoiding their pitfalls. I’m not a Chilean citizen, nor do I seek to become one. It’s just a good place to own real estate. The taxes are easy enough to avoid if you organize your affairs properly.

  • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

    Please publish whatever you can of this list:
    1) The name of any government officials who tell you that you may not publish other stuff on this list.
    2) The names of any government officials involved in the litigation of the three cases.
    3) Select (you choose) pieces of the “too long a paper trail, [and] too much evidence” referenced at http://ggcrecovery.com.
    4) An English translation of http://ggcrecovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Querella-criminal-estafa-y-art.-138-LUC-Curacav%C3%AD.1-10.pdf and the other PDFs on that site.

    I suspect that Johnson may enjoy the protection of various government employees, so items 1 and 2 above are especially important. Public scrutiny is generally the only way to get government agents with significant power to behave honorably, especially where there’s a $10M prize luring them into dishonor.

    • Cathy

      Much of the paper trail and evidence are posted in the time line and blog posts on our website, http://ggcrecovery.com. More is in the forensic report we wrote for our lawyers in Chile and the FBI in the US. The contracts and marketing materials when taken in the context of the lack of government approvals and the requirements of the Urbanism and Construction Act make it obvious that there was fraud.

      Also, there were plenty of US law violations that anyone with a little background in finance could sniff out.

      His goose is COOKED.

      • goober

        not until you cook it — kill him. that’s the only justice you will get

  • Don Duncan

    Had I just examined the paperwork for investing at GGC I might have been taken in, not being knowledgeable about the legalities in Chile. But when I heard about the necessity of getting water rights/subdivision approval, which was not done, only promised, I questioned KJ at FreedomFest. He was visibly distressed, while assuring me it was “in the bag”. Body language gave him away. I could see he was lying. I decided to wait, hoping he was wrong, and everything would be sorted out. I did not know he was a con man. But I knew the project was too risky at that time. I used my expertise in reading people and saved by nest egg, and probably my marriage. It’s called “due diligence”.

    • Kashyap

      Totally. And sinking one’s entire life savings into a risky real estate project is madness. That investor has only himself to blame for making such emotional decisions with his money. The whole idea due diligence and risk management is to avoid making such blunders.

      • Cathy

        Yes, it was stupid, but you are blaming the victim.

        • Adriana Pena

          From someone who believes that poor people DESERVE to be poor because they do not work hard enough,, blaming the victim is par for the course.

          • mary

            I don’t believe that. I believe no one deserves to be poor. I also believe that gov’t perpetuates poverty and therefore statist policies hurt the poor more than anyone.

        • Dave Burke

          >>
          Yes, it was stupid, but you are blaming the victim.
          >>

          But that’s the Libertarian way. You can’t complain about it.

  • Marcus

    funny I got an email from some moron named Galen Brown this time ago in 2013, I also researched these crooks too: from freedom Orchard
    https://vergellibertad.wordpress.com/

    basically : ( sure happy I did my home work before forking out $$$$ to these crooks)

    Hi Marcus, I’m reaching out
    briefly to introduce myself and to make sure you know I’m available to
    help answer your questions about Galt’s Gulch Chile.

    Please email me any questions
    and I’ll get back to you right away, or let me know a few good times to
    call you so we can discuss over the phone or Skype. My contact info is
    below.

    Cheers,

    Gaelan Brown
    Account Manager
    Renewable Energy/Compost Consultant
    Galt’s Gulch Chile
    Skype: GaelanBrown

  • Goodyear Jhuugmkkmp

    We thought Gult’s Gulch was a wonderful concept,but upon receiving the tour and kicking the dirt ( definetly not good soil) we walked away.The water rights were avoided and at best promised to be dealt with in the future. We have our peace of heaven in a different country now.

  • Ish Gadol

    Congratulation for sticking with this Jeff, Cathy and et al. It is important work. Not just the property development, but also allowing the rest of us to learn how to do Libertarianism better by allowing us to observe the painful mistakes you all have suffered at the hands of these vile people. Someone must have the courage to bring libertarian philosophies into the proving ground of the actual marketplace, or at least the courage to let others examine their mistakes, in order to advance the functionality of libertarianism. I would like to see GGC succeed in spite of the “gloaters.”

    • Dave Burke

      >>
      Someone must have the courage to bring libertarian philosophies into the proving ground of the actual marketplace
      >>

      Someone did. His name is Ken Johnson, and he applied libertarian philosophies to scam his fellow libertarians.

      • mary

        Ridiculous. He didn’t apply libertarian philosophies. He doesn’t have any. He’s your garden variety psychopath who defrauded 73 people.

        • Adriana Pena

          But how can libertarian principles detect psychopaths before we deal with them?

        • Dave Burke

          >>
          He didn’t apply libertarian philosophies. He doesn’t have any.
          >>

          Let’s see:

          * individualism
          * free markets
          * natural harmony of interests
          * non-violence

          Johnson’s actions tick all of those boxes. We could add ‘insatiable lust for money’m which seems to be the most important libertarian principle.

          >>
          He’s your garden variety psychopath
          >>

          Classic libertarian!

    • Adriana Pena

      Maybe there is a lesson in this, which is not pretty:

      Regulations exist not because we cannot make our own decisions, but because there are a lot of predators out there.

      • Daniel Ryan

        Late comer in this. But I can remember Ron Paul decrying the call for fresh regulations following the Enron bankruptcy because, after all, regulations certainly didn’t prevent the actions of the Enron gang. And to be fair, he certainly had a point. But the part he seemed to miss was the human element; that Enron’s crimes were of such a scale, caused so much harm, that they got away with it for as long as they did, and that those responsible suffered comparatively mild sentences was bound to generate a lot of public shock and outrage, and the wider public were going to want to see something done to try to prevent it from happening again-hence the call for more regulation. For my own part, I do believe there is an alternative: harsher punishments, possibly even including applying the death penalty to certain white collar criminals. While I don’t believe there really is any such thing as “deterrence,” because no criminal grows a conscience watching another get their own, it would at least satisfy that public outrage and hence cool the call for regulation. But even that flies in the face of libertarian ideal who regard government imposed jail sentences or executions as “aggression.”

  • LawrenceNeal

    “an initial investor sunk his whole life savings into an equity investment. He currently supports his wife, their toddler and infant by doing odd jobs like shoveling snow and cutting lawns.” How does losing your savings reduce a person to doing scab labor and being homeless? There has to be more to his problems than loss of savings.

    • Cathy

      Lawrence, he was living off his savings and investments. He fell for Johnson’s fraudulent proformas that projected income being thrown off beginning within a year of investment. He was in high tech but has been out of the job market for 8 years or so, so his past experience doesn’t help him.

      • LawrenceNeal

        Thank you for the illumination.

        • index1000

          is it an illumination though?? i don’t know any of the people involved but the only person i ever saw bigging this investment up was Jeff Berwick. Constantly receiving emails telling me about initial investors club and i would get all my money back as well as own property and part of the farm. That was all JB.
          Why is that never mentioned? Why is he now a ‘victim’? he stated that he would work till the end of his days to make this right! This is the first he has posted about it in a almost a couple of years.
          If JB was so determined to make this right why is a guy and his family living in their car while he is in his nice house in Acapulco?

          • index1000

            Continued from above… Is the real estate market in Acapulco so bad that you can’t sell a house? what about that hotel he runs? no rooms at the inn for a family living in a car?
            This Johnson character may be the biggest rogue on the planet i don’t know but does that excuse the person who Hired him? did this great Entrepreneur do no research on this guys character? his history of successful project management and development of overseas property? Did he just become this pathological lying psychopath overnight?

          • LawrenceNeal

            I was thanking Cathy for explaining why the investor had fallen to such rock-bottom lows, although, I guess he could still lose the car.
            And even if he’s not at cutting edge tech industry, it seems he could still do freelancing for people without a clue (such as myself, and I do have a go-to tech guy). Just goes to show, don’t put all your eggs in one basket, don’t fall behind the edge. Complacency creeps up on us all.
            My sole source of info on GG was Dollar Vigilante, although I didn’t invest. Nor did several friends I sent the info to. Jeff may have failed to do due diligence, been dazzled by a silver tongued rogue. Happens to the best of us. All in all, no one person can save everyone, I doubt there’s room in his house, and at his table, for everyone that put their everything into GG. In the end we all look out for ours and our first.
            Of the many things learned from this disaster is, first look at land use and restrictions, before buying and dreaming of perfection. In an age of specialization, internet and financial management may not have prepared for land development. Murphy’s Law affects us all; ‘People will rise to their level of incompetence’.
            In the end, everyone is responsible for their own decisions. A person that decided to retire early, live off savings and investments, lose their technical edge, and then place the entirety of their finances in an incomplete project without exhaustively researching that project, has to bear the major part of the blame.
            I was roped into attending an ‘event’, where 5 minutes was spent lauding a product, 5 minutes spent saying how people could sell this product to friends and associates, and 50 minutes spent saying how a person could ascend to unimaginable heights of wealth by becoming one of four top vendors of the product in the company… weaving this pie in the sky fantasy pie by a charismatic speaker. I got the hell out of there as soon as possible, other marks were convinced to buy quantities of the product, which, no doubt, are still sitting in their garages. Whom, ultimately, is responsible for their being taken in?

          • index1000

            Strawmen and BS. Your analogy of an MLM event you were ‘roped’ into is complete hokum. MLM is legal. Flogging real estate that you don’t own is Fraud. Claiming that you have water rights when you don’t is Fraud. Then blaming everything on the guy you hired shows a massive lack of basic ethics and honesty.
            I agree that people should have seen through the silver tongued rogue, we disagree on who that rogue is though you see one i think there are several.

          • LawrenceNeal

            Dude, I’m not making excuses for anyone, just expressing my opinion off the top pf my head. I wasn’t involved in GG on either side. There’s enough blame to go around. I think Jeff shares some of the fault, he was certainly flogging the project. There’s Ken Johnson and I don’t know who else. It’s a shame to see a good concept go down in flames, but it was flawed from the start.
            Yes, Multi Level Marketing is legal, but it’s still a manipulation of the gullible.
            As for being roped in to a MLM ‘Event’, I met a woman in the grocery store, invited her to dinner. She called later and asked if we could attend an event first, wouldn’t say what kind of event, it was a ‘surprise’. I figured a wine tasting or the like. Discovered she was part of the group and I was being set up as one of the gullible.

          • index1000

            well you said you were roped in not me. and seriously using the word Dude???? are you 11.

  • Patrick

    ken Johnson has a compulsive lying disorder?

    • Cathy

      Is that a question for anyone to answer? My humble opinion is yes.

  • Bitcoingoldliberty

    Many people trusted your word Jeff.
    Can’t keep track of 6 or 7 figures ? Which is it ? You could show some remorse as you had first hand accesss to all the information. Naively thinking you were a 50% partner and promoting it to people who subscribe to your newsletters.

    • Bevin Chu

      As opposed to?

  • Dagny

    Jeff, just wondering if you ever finished Atlas Shrugged? I remember
    when you started this GGC thing, you had not (I always found that odd).
    REF: Anarchast Ep. 52, Jan 2013. I know it seams petty, but was
    definitely my red flag to stay away… Who would do such a thing, never even reading the book?! SPOILER ALERT: It was
    not the “vision” of Ayn Rand (as you mention so often) for those to “buy” a place to run and live
    in fear of a collapsing society? Nor is that the premiss of the novel. People were hand selected and thoroughly vetted …because of their mind, productivity and
    understanding of want over need… then plucked from societies progress;
    finally leaving only the leaches. THAT is what what stopped the motor of
    the world. THEY STOPPED IT on purpose, by removing themselves and all their productive energy. Was that your (teams) intention? (as i stare at 4 mugshots in litigation – what a mess). Would John Galt have picked Ken or the the others you have
    come to publicly shame/blame? Would you have even been picked Jeff? I do agree, all it makes for a romantic sales pitch, for those of us who loved the book… and sure, you would get some like minded folks. productive? …well we’ll most likely never know.

  • DannyGuam maybeIdoalittle

    This is just too, too funny. Libertarians screwed over by libertarianism. Hah! Irony isn’t dead after all. This whole story is just precious. Freedom this, Liberty that. I am laughing my ass off over this story. Gee, it turns out you need rules and laws and a “system” to function after all. You idiots thought you could go play in your Randiian tree fort and it would be some kind of perfect world that only you “individuals” could create out of nothing but a horribly bad make believe book by a freak that lived on Social Security checks in her later years. From the government! Oh, dog I am laughing at you people. The con man at the center of this is the poster boy for Libertarianism.

    • Gabriel Scheare

      Con men exist in all ideologies from Christianity to Atheism, from Communism to Fascism, and from Statism to Anarchism. This is about a real estate scam, not about political philosophies.

      • index1000

        no it is about both.

        • Gabriel Scheare

          The Galt name was just branding. It was just another gated community in a country of laws like any other. I worked there as a volunteer for three months.

          • index1000

            I agree Gabriel that it was just branding but initially it was promoted as anything but that. it was a community of libertarians etc etc, i doubt i was the only one to think it was just a convenient branding exercise at the time.It was never (even once) sold as just a gated community in a country of laws.

          • Gabriel Scheare

            That’s true. It was marketed to appeal to a certain sort of mark… but just because people of a certain sort were targeted doesn’t mean that their victimhood speaks to their ideology. I was drawn in too, for a while, but fortunately went to check it out for myself. It’s a shame that more people didn’t take the same initiative.

          • index1000

            i agree and we have kind of got off topic. i am shocked by the number of so called intelligent people who failed to do any or very little due diligence of this scheme. However the people who instigated, promoted and sold this should not now be allowed to pass themselves off as a victim just because a few years have gone by.

          • Gabriel Scheare

            I couldn’t agree more.

      • Adriana Pena

        Yeah, it is also how people who do not want government to make decisions for them, and be free to make their own, then make terribly bad decisions, and then go to big bad governemtn for redress – and not wondering if they were wrong to reject it in the first place.

        • Gabriel Scheare

          It allows for people to succeed and fail on their own. I don’t agree with people who fail and then plea for help from the state. To freedom includes the freedom to fail. It’s all about personal responsibility.

    • Cathy

      Danny, Isn’t schadenfreude grand? Just one teensy weensy problem with your statement. Johnson is not and never was a libertarian. Go to the following link for our blog post with Johnson’s own words about this:

      http://ggcrecovery.com/isnt-ggc-just-a-case-of-libertarian-in-fighting/

      • Dave Burke

        >>
        Johnson is not and never was a libertarian.
        >>

        Ah, the good old ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy!

        • mary

          No, that isn’t. I didn’t say he isn’t a libertarian because I have defined his beliefs. JOHNSON HIMSELF SAYS HE’S NOT AND NEVER WAS A LIBERTARIAN.

          • Adriana Pena

            But he could pass as one because the bright, independent libertarians who wanted to make their own decisiions by themselves could not spot a fraud – thus showing that they could NOT make their own decisions without help.

          • Dave Burke

            >>
            JOHNSON HIMSELF SAYS HE’S NOT AND NEVER WAS A LIBERTARIAN.
            >>

            Evidence please. Also, does this mean Libertarians can’t even tell a Libertarian from a non-Libertarian even while they’re entering into a legal contract with him? In any case, Jeff Berwick was responsible for this con as well, and he’s definitely a self-avowed Libertarian.

  • Óðinn

    I hate to be a stickler for principles, but you guys should take your lumps like true Libertarians instead of running to the nanny state to solve your problems. Seems like a person who would get involved in lawsuits and legal action isn’t much of a Libertarian at all. This is Libertarianism in practice. Learn to accept your own principles, or don’t call yourselves Libertarians. Don’t be hypocrites.

    • Cathy

      We tried for 18+ months to negotiate to avoid using the courts. If we were allowed by the nanny state to solve our problem ourselves, we would have. But that would be using evil “vigilante justice.”

      To let these criminals get away with their crimes to find new victims would hardly be libertarian.

      When you can explain to us how to survive without using the
      nanny state in some way, we’ll listen to you. We wonder how you avoid
      the nanny state every day? Enlighten us.

      The chances that this poster uses gov’t roads, gov’t education, gov’t insurance, gov’t welfare in the form of some kind of subsidy like social security, etc. and/or is a gov’t employee is extremely high. i.e. certain.

      • Óðinn

        Hey, if you want to “use government roads,” that’s up to you. It’s not for me. But Then again, I’m a Libertarian.

        • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

          The anarchist methods of solving problems are often punishable by law. Do you recommend that people use them anyway? Do you?

          It is possible to maintain your principles and still avoid starving to death by accepting and eating the food your captor steals from those you consider friends.

          Likewise, it is possible to maintain libertarian principles and still achieve some justice by using a court system that steals its financial support from those you consider your friends. Does it make sense?

          • Adriana Pena

            honey the court system does not steal. It gets paid for doing the work of solving problems like yours. Do you REALLY expect judges to work for free?

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            Nah. The proper way to pay an arbiter for services is for the contending parties to each put up the cost of the services into escrow and then the arbiter decides how it gets split up.

        • Cathy

          Odinn, you haven’t answered my question. How many “gov’t roads” do you use? How exactly do you maintain your purity?

          Might I remind you that your accusation of hypocrisy is made without the slightest knowledge of the complexity of this situation, the people involved, all the actions we’ve taken and, I assume, the legal system in Chile. I wonder why you feel so sure of yourself. Who are you to be casting the first stone?

          No need to answer this post. I accept your apology.

          • Óðinn

            I don’t apologize to liberals like you. Keep sucking on that government teat, hippie.

      • Dorfl

        If we were allowed by the nanny state to solve our problem ourselves, we would have. But that would be using evil “vigilante justice.” […] When you can explain to us how to survive without using the nanny state in some way, we’ll listen to you.

        I literally burst out laughing at this.

        I love how you’re completely open with the fact that – once you get past the rhetoric about ‘freedom’, ‘statism’ and ‘independence’ – your ideology simply boils down to the rule of naked force.

        • Herring

          In all human endeavors, things sometimes eventually come down to force. Libertarianism opposes the use of force by the STATE against its people. In the case of fraud (entering into contracts and then intentionally failing to deliver on them), there are only two possible responses: do nothing and allow the fraudster to get away with it (bad for those particular victims and society as a whole, as fraud will become common), or use force to recover what can be recovered and punish the fraudster. If you accept that force is necessary, then it must be delivered by the state or by the defrauded. Currently, the state claims monopoly on use of force (with an exception for immediate self-defense). Libertarians aren’t against the use of force (ever notice they tend to have guns?) They just say it should be a last resort, used in response to others initiating force or fraud. I hope you understand better now.

          • Dorfl

            I hope you understand better now.

            Not really, since I understood fine the first time around. In a libertarian society, then if Cathy and her friends outgun Ken and the others sufficiently, they’ll be able to punish them for fraud in whatever way they personally believe is just. On the other hand, if Ken and the others have enough firepower of their own, they will get away with it. They may even decide that Cathy et al just initiated force against them and punish them for attempted robbery in whatever way they think is just. Either way, the case will be decided by who can bring in the most friends with guns. Like I said, the rule of naked force.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            What you perceive as a rule is simply the outcome in your narrow view of the situation. Other possible outcomes do not come down to naked force. Situations that do come down to naked force generally involve irrational participants, and, as Herring explained so well, libertarian philosophy has no problem recognizing and using naked force against irrationality. There are still principles to consider, and your apparent inability to recognize principles (when not provided by the state) might explain why your comments inspire disagreement.

          • Dorfl

            Your principles don’t change the underlying physical realities. If you believe someone has defrauded you, your ability to be recompensed for that will depend on your ability to commit violence against them. If their capacity for violence exceeds yours, you’re out of luck. They might even decide that you just initiated the use of force against them, and that they’re now acting purely in self-defence. In this case, principles really don’t matter, since crooks have a tendency not to follow the rules.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            “If you believe someone has defrauded you, your ability to be
            recompensed for that will depend on your ability to commit violence
            against them.”

            That has not been my experience. I’m sorry your life is that way. If you give publication a chance before resorting to violence, you’ll probably figure out why I disagree with your claim here. Publish the fraud and see what happens.

            “…crooks have a tendency not to follow the rules.”

            The tendency is strengthened by the presence of the state (and sometimes the state creates the criminals by making stuff illegal that in no way harms anyone). I have found more honor among those who defy the state than among those who don’t. In fact, I have found that criminals are often more trustworthy than non-criminals simply because they have to rely on their reputation and cannot turn to the government for help. The worst criminals are those who are also government agents (see the Ross Ulbricht story for more details).

          • Dorfl

            My life is fine, since I live in a place where I can just call the police. If I got defrauded* I wouldn’t need to form a vigilante posse with my friends and relatives.

            On the other hand, the post by Cathy that started this discussion is precisely about the fact that in this situation, vigilante violence is the only alternative you have to calling in the state. All the negotiation that should have solved your problem in an imagined libertarian world turned out not to actually work.

            * Strangely, despite me living in statist Scandinavia, this has never actually happened. It’s like the correlation between the state and antisocial behaviour isn’t actually real.

          • Joshua

            So help me understand.
            What exactly is the mechanism of justice for those who violate the rights of another. Is it always to kill them? the choice is you kill the guy or let him go? Serious question. Just because it’s a libertarian society doesn’t mean everyone is honest and will honor a handshake. How do criminals get justice?

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            Each of us has a responsibility. If you are the victim of a criminal, what would you do? There is no “exact” mechanism of justice. The search for an exact mechanism suggests hubris to me. The search should be for perfect justice, but that search never ends. This is why there can be no exact mechanism.

            I have never been confronted with a situation in which the only choices are kill the criminal or let him go. All criminals have minds which can be engaged to repair the damage they’ve done both to themselves and to their victims.

          • Herring

            Which is no different from how it is otherwise. The only reason I “have to” do anything is because at the end of the day guys will come and kill or imprison me if I don’t. You just want to require the taxpayers to pay for the bullets and jails.

          • Adriana Pena

            No use of force by the STATE. By private individuals is OK.

            A lot of domestic abusers are relieved.

      • Dave Burke

        >>
        When you can explain to us how to survive without using the nanny state in some way, we’ll listen to you.
        >>

        You’re clearly not a libertarian if you believe we need the nanny state to survive.

        • Cathy

          That’s not what I said. It’s not a question of needing the state for survival. It’s that the penalties established by tptb for not using the state monopoly institutions, or the shear impossibility of living without using those institutions makes it impossible to avoid being entangled by the nanny state.

          Are you a libertarian? How do you drive to work? Even if you are libertarian, there’s a 95% chance that you send your children to government school. If you live in a city, you’re probably using government water, government sewer, government public transportation. Yet you are pure, and we are not. go figure.

          • Dave Burke

            >>
            Are you a libertarian?
            >>

            Nope. Do you think it’s a coincidence that there has never been a successful libertarian community?

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            Dave, “There has never been…” is a really bad argument. If it held any water, we wouldn’t have indoor plumbing, the wheel, airplanes, or agriculture, all of which are things that at one point in the past, there had never been. This might work a little better:

            As long as there are bad people in the world, you libertarian ideal cannot be achieved because they will ruin it. Your only hope is to improve the existing state system through participation and engagement.

            Of course, that argument has flaws in it too, because bad people do NOT ruin the libertarian ideal. They make it harder to maintain, but bad people make everything harder to maintain. That is their nature.

            It may sound like I’m on the fence about libertarianism, or, more accurately, anarchy. I am not. The small percentage of people who will, with full understanding of what they’re doing and its ramifications, exhibit bad behavior for their own benefit, will be less and less of a nuisance as the main attraction to them (state power) dwindles. State power dwindles in proportion to the connectedness of the individuals over whom it is exercised, and that connectedness is growing faster and stronger than ever before.

            The paradox you are attempting to use as an argument against anarchy (or libertarianism) is was explained by Cathy: “state monopoly institutions.” If we keep you in a cage, would you consider valid our arguments that since you’d starve if we didn’t give you food, you need us? That is the position you seem to be taking.

          • Dave Burke

            >>
            Dave, “There has never been…” is a really bad argument.
            >>

            I wasn’t making an argument, I was raising a question. Would you like to answer it?

            >>
            If we keep you in a cage, would you consider valid our arguments that since you’d starve if we didn’t give you food, you need us? That is the position you seem to be taking.
            >>

            That’s not the position I’m taking.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            >>
            Do you think it’s a coincidence that there has never been a successful libertarian community? … I wasn’t making an argument, I was raising a question. Would you like to answer it?
            >>
            Sure, I’ll answer it: No. Do you think it’s a coincidence?

            >>

            That’s not the position I’m taking.
            >>
            I didn’t think so. It just seems that way and I thought it might help you if I pointed it out.

          • Dave Burke

            >>
            Sure, I’ll answer it: No. Do you think it’s a coincidence?
            >>

            No, I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I think it’s because enough people know that Libertarianism simply doesn’t work. It’s a fairy tale for adults who never outgrew their self-centered toddler stage.

          • Adriana Pena

            Got a question for you.

            You agree that the market always gives the true value.

            Now, in the marketplace of ideas, libertarianism does not get much purchase.

            The markeptlace has spoken. Accept its verdict and find an ideology that the market accepts.

            Seriously, the market is just the aggregate of people buying and selling.

            Now if the majority of people reject your philosophy, why is it?

            Is your philosophy worthless?

            Or are they deluded, making irrational choices?

            So, why do you expect deluded people who make irrational choices to become prodigies of wisdom when they to shopping?

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            >> Now if the majority of people reject your philosophy, why is it?

            If they actually rejected it, it would be because, as you imply, it is only valuable to a minority of people. However, most people do not understand the philosophy of freedom. I invite you to have folks who can read English watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I and then take a poll and see if it is really a majority that rejects it.

            >> Is your philosophy worthless?

            A majority of people reject golf as a pastime. Is golf worthless? You can apply the same logic to yachts, bowling, Tagalog, Urdu, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Stoicism but, I assure you, none of them are worthless. The trick is to find the value in something, rather than rejecting it. I do not reject any of those things, although I have not purchased a yacht. The appeal to the behavior of the majority is a strategy fraught with difficulty, and ill-advised, in my opinion.

            >> Or are they deluded, making irrational choices?

            Of course, people make irrational choices all the time. We are primarily emotional creatures, but those who are most successful tend to use rationality in greater proportion to emotion than those who are less successful.

            >> So, why do you expect deluded people who make irrational choices to become prodigies of wisdom when they to shopping?

            I don’t know what you mean by “…when they to shopping,” but that qualifier doesn’t change my answer. I always expect deluded people “who make irrational choices to become prodigies of wisdom” because human beings tend to meet expectations when they (the expectations) are held by honorable people. Whenever I engage with someone on a personal level, they turn out to be much smarter and insightful than they appear when I’m simply eavesdropping.

            Thanks for asking!

          • Adriana Pena

            Well, can you devise a way to detect crooks before they approach you? Unless you do, you will be vulnerable. And your rejecting the government may make you more vulnerable still.

            Libertarianism needs to survive in the real world. And crooks ARE part of the real world. Failure to consider them dooms any theoretical system when it tries to go into practic

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            I don’t mind being vulnerable. I know some self-defense, and I tend to have pretty good rapport with people even if they have decided to turn to crime.

            I have found that rejecting government has made me less vulnerable, but when an institution uses public sanction to scare or otherwise force competitors out of any market, it’s possible to use that institution’s services without compromising your principles. The only institution that can use public sanction to constrain the market is government. There is no shame in eating the food provided to you by those who keep you in a cage no matter how much evil they do.

          • mary

            That depends on how you look at things. Most people, esp. in the US, are very libertarian in their relations with others in their daily lives. They have been conditions through govt schools and the media (continuation of govt schools) to believe that their libertarian daily habits have no place in the political sphere. The govt control of schools and media goes a long way to explaining why there are no libertarian political districts. It has nothing to due with the validity of the ideas.

        • Adriana Pena

          Well, the people who are using the nanny state to recover their lost investment are not libertarians then. And you need not waste your sympathy on them.

  • Rikki

    One of the themes that runs through Atlas Shrugged is that people should use their rational faculties to make decisions based on evidence. Relying on the decisions of others means abdication of your own intellect and rationality. A prime example of this is the San Sebastian Mines in Mexico developed by Francisco D’Anconia. He deliberately created a worthless mine and investors from all over the world clamored to get a piece of it. But they did not do their own due diligence, and their reliance on the choices made by another, without independent investigation, ruined them. People who invested in Galt’s Gulch without investigating its feasibility were not acting as Objectivists. They were second-handers.

  • Rikki

    The purpose of the judicial system in an Objectivist world is very limited. One of those limited purposes is to resolve contractual disputes and uphold property rights. There is no problem, from an Objectivist or Libertarian point of view, for the defrauded investors to take their claims to court to seek restitution.

    • Adriana Pena

      And if they do not obey the courts, or refuse to recognize them what then?

      Or what if the judges are paid by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff who give the biggest payment wins?

      • Rikki

        The judgment of the court would be enforced the way it is now – if voluntary payment is not made by the losing party, the winner could attach assets of the loser to enforce payment.

        If judges accept bribes from litigants, they would be removed from the bench.

        I think the premise implicit in your comments – all of them running through this discussion – is that libertarianism means no government, which is not the case. It means limited government, limited to protecting rights of individuals from the actions of the government and other people. This would necessarily include a system of adjudication and enforcement.

  • plainsman844

    AHHHahaha!

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/19/libertarians-never-learn/

  • David Heffron

    Perhaps I haven’t fully appreciated the libertarian philosophy. Surely if private negotiation fails and you have to turn to the law courts for justice, you’re no longer a libertarian?

    Isn’t it sink or swim in the libertarian view point. Those who were defrauded simply weren’t cut out to be successful.

    • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

      My friend, you may use the word “libertarian” as you see fit. I call myself a voluntaryist, and I realize that is close to “libertarian.”

      The word pales in comparison to the philosophy of liberty. Those are three words that lead you to a plethora of words and images on youtube that will help eliminate any lack of clarity on what *I* mean by “philosophy of liberty”, at least right now – who knows how much pollution the psychopaths will be able to add to it in the future?

      When negotiation fails, one may choose to turn to the public to publish the details of a previously private transaction in the hope that peer pressure will have a positive effect. Perhaps the wrongdoer will make amends. If not, at least others are warned. This is the preternatural function of courts, and it is perfectly in line with the philosophy of liberty as I see it.

      If you see inconsistency in the use of government agents to force a wrongdoer to make amends, then we have some agreement there. Coercion simply will not do for me. However, in the realm of ownership, there is no such thing as coercion. Regardless of how a real owner is coerced into pretending that he no longer owns what he has produced, he remains the owner. Nemo Dat… I don’t remember the rest, but it means no one gives what he does not own. Nor can ownership be altered through coercion. That is deep philosophy of liberty stuff right there.

      When someone occupies your property after you have given them ample time to leave, you are justified in any act you take against them. You are NOT justified in aggressing against others who have not taken or occupied your property.

      • David Heffron

        So the libertarian answer would have been to hire some people to “escort” him off property that did not belong to him.

        But recourse to the courts means you have abandoned your libertarian principles.

        • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

          You’ll have to explain your logic. It isn’t making sense to me.

          • David Heffron

            Well, by going to the court they admitted that rather than being self reliant they turned to the state to seek justice.

            A real libertarian would have used their own wits to regain their property. The state isn’t there to nanny you.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            I understand that you think “going to court” and “turning to the state” are the same thing. Since that is what you think, you may benefit from looking at it a different way:

            “Going to court” means bringing a conflict between parties out into the public so that it can be judged by the public (think “trial by jury”). Think of a basketball court or a tennis court. They are used to allow two contending teams or individuals to hash out differences in a way that keeps them more honest (by being public).

            The state doesn’t have a lot to do with the essence of courts. If you decide to use a gun to protect yourself, and you fill out the paperwork required so that you don’t get accosted by the state, are you using the state?

            When you have been kidnapped and your kidnapper offers you food, are you “turning to your kidnappers” if you accept the food?

            Ok, that’s two questions to which your answers might suggest to me that the Galt’s Gulch Recovery Team relied too heavily on the state for them to call themselves libertarian.

          • David Heffron

            It’s why Galt’s Gulch and anyone else trying this is doomed to failure. Libertarianism is inherently about self interest. A society can’t function if everyone in it doesn’t believe that there is no society only individuals.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            “A society can’t function if everyone in it doesn’t believe that there is no society only individuals.”

            I absolutely agree.

            You’re misusing the word “libertarian.” If you’re interested in freedom, check out voluntaryism or voluntaryist.com. You might start using the word “libertarian” in a more effective and sensible way.

          • Adriana Pena

            Going to court means using he services of judicial employees paid by public taxes. Why shoud people who have never heard of any of the plantiffs pay to resolve their problems?

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            Ok, so we disagree on what “going to court” means. That’s ok. Perhaps you re-read what I wrote, you’ll see that I don’t think “people who have never heard of any of the plantiffs [should] pay to resolve their problems.” So I have the same question you have: Why should they?

            In the present case, the public taxes have already been used to pay for a justice system that no one else is allowed to run, so the plaintiffs have no choice.

    • Rikki

      I agree that you haven’t fully appreciated the Libertarian philosophy. The following is from the Libertarian party platform:

      “Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.”

      So while Libertarians want a limited role for government, they also believe the government should provide a framework to protect individual rights, including property rights.

      https://www.lp.org/platform

      • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

        Good points. In Mr. Heffron’s defense, I think he meant to suggest that the Galt’s Gulch Recovery team was inconsistent in using the courts while adhering to *anarchy* rather than *libertarianism*. However, he may simply be on some kind of anti-freedom kick.

        In any case, there is no (and obviously cannot be any) group that speaks for anarchists. Each of us speaks for himself, and I have done that. I disavow coercion, but I champion the publication of bad behavior and the social pressure it can put on bad actors to behave better. Coercion, in my book, can only exist when the victim is not violating the rights of others. When you force someone to stop violating your rights, you are not violating my principles – regardless whether or not you call it “coercion.” While the scale of your force against a rights violator should approximate the scale of his violation of you, I see no immorality in forcing him to leave you and your stuff alone.

      • David Heffron

        Ah, so they only want the government to provide the things they want and damn everyone else.

        Gotcha.

        • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

          Perhaps you should read it again. The dictionary is your friend.

          • David Heffron

            I think my summary was pretty accurate. Otherwise you’d have pointed out why I was wrong.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            I don’t know where or why you were wrong or even that you’re actually wrong. I just see that your comment doesn’t really follow from what Rikki wrote, so I thought maybe it was because you didn’t understand some of the words in it.

          • David Heffron

            No, I fully get it. Libertarians don’t like government. Except the bits they like.

            How is that different from anyone else’s position.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            Well, it’s different from my position because I don’t like even the most likable parts of government. You could call my position “voluntaryist” if you want.

            If you look through a straw at an elephant, you will say “It’s grey, just like a thunderstorm, so how is an elephant different from a thunder storm?” If you expand your view so that it encompasses the whole elephant, then you can begin to understand how they are different.

            Rikki typed out a lot of what you missed. It’s why I guessed that you didn’t understand some of it. At this point, I think you probably did understand it, but you’re playing dumb because that’s fun. It’s kind of fun for me too, so carry on!

            The area in which I agree with the Libertarian Party view the most is the maturation of the conscience. Many people feel that “acting in good conscience” is essentially obeying laws. That’s a feeling that comes from a very destructive kind of brainwashing (very destructive, but also ridiculously prevalent – see John Taylor Gatto’s “Ultimate History Lesson”). Most people are capable of imagining a situation in which the law requires an act they feel is immoral (or prohibits an act they feel is morally imperative), and this practice (imagining that the authorities demand behavior that goes against your conscience) helps heal the brainwashing. Libertarians (and voluntaryists) generally have done the work that brings about this healing, and so they no longer rely on laws to determine right from wrong and good from evil. They continue to develop their consciences and live by them, regardless of authorities.

          • David Heffron

            That’s be why Galt’s Gulch failed then.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            Nah dude. It was trust in Ken Johnson mixed with a failure of due diligence.

          • David Heffron

            No it failed because when you “no longer rely on laws to determine right from wrong and good from evil” then it’s fucked when someone decides to pick evil.

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            Well, fucked, sure, but with due diligence and a healthy skepticism of the trustworthiness of others, that doesn’t happen, whether or not you rely on laws. But we’re talking about laws created by authorities, not laws of conscience, right? The development of one’s conscience can be viewed as the development of law, but it’s personal law – a consistency in one’s behavior on which others can count. I’m sure that those who knew Ken Johnson and looked for that consistency discovered that it wasn’t there. That would have saved this project (or prevented it from growing into such a big problem).

          • David Heffron

            ” but with due diligence and a healthy skepticism of the trustworthiness of others”. Since that didn’t happen at Galt’s Gulch, I take it you agree that the investors deserved to lose their money?

          • Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            No, Dave. No one deserves to be the victim of crime.

            On the other hand, those of us who have the wisdom to recognize that suffering is a learning opportunity are somewhat thankful for being victimized. We’ve been taught to protect ourselves better, to perform healthy due diligence, and to find ways to mitigate the dishonor others may harbor. I was not a victim of Ken Johnson’s predation, but I have suffered other losses, and I learned from them, and ended up stronger.

            So you can have it either way, I guess.

            I guess I’m kind of a Stoic, so I don’t bother deciding whether or not I agree with claims about what others deserve. Rather, I like to be the best example for them that I can be. As Albert Jay Nock put it, “[A]ges of experience testify that the only way society can be improved is by the individualist method …, that is, the method of each ‘one’ doing his very best to improve ‘one’.”

          • Cathy

            No libertarian I know says that “damn everyone else.” You are making that up to cast aspersions on libertarians. TROLL

          • David Heffron

            Yet you see fit to spam me with your opinions. Unfortunately, that’s what Libertarianism is at its core.

            TROLL.

    • Bernie Bayer

      You dont fully appreciate the libertarian philosophy. Rule of law still applies.

      • David Heffron

        But who sets the law? The minute you both agree that there’s a place for independent arbitration then – boom – you’ve created government.

        • Cathy

          No, the definition of govt does not include independent arbitration. In political science 101, you learn that a govt is the organization with a monopoly of use of force in a given geographic location. Independent arbitration can be offered–and in fact is offered, currently–by arbitration centers that are not connected to govt. For example, we used the Santiago Arbitration center to obtain a lien on the GGC properties.

          • David Heffron

            How do you enforce the results of arbitration?

      • Dave Burke

        >>
        You dont fully appreciate the libertarian philosophy. Rule of law still applies.
        >>

        But under libertarianism, the rule of law is not set by the state; it exists independent of the state and arises from spontaneously developed legal rules determined by libertarians themselves. The state is not supposed to interfere, remember?

        • Cathy

          You are describing the common law tradition. Laws are discovered through the legal proceedings. Btw, the courts are not necessarily an arm of the govt.

          Again, you seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy. There are many different opinions as to what role the govt should play in a libertarian society, everything from anarchy to a watchman state to even govt involvement in the economy as per Milton Friedman.

  • bill

    So..Jeff you take no responsibility? It was all someone else’s fault huh?
    I find it interesting that you are not on the list of con men that is being charged, why is that?…Your pretty good at this aren’t you?

  • David Bergeron

    Members of a Galt’s Gulch need to be well vetted. Libertarians are trusting because they are generally trustworthy and assume that of others. But that is not a good assumption. When the GGC reopens, be selective and use references. It can work and be successful IF there is a strong moral compass in each member (and organizer)

    • Adriana Pena

      You have shown why libertariansm does not work. “Members need to be well vetted”. Well, with well vetted members, even a Trappist monastery will work, as Bernad Shaw pointed out. The trick is applying it into a society at large where you have to take your members as you find them.

      The moment you say “well vetted” you have conceded that your system will work only in an artificial environment.

  • l3leach

    Wow, when I saw this a while ago I had my misgivings, but I didn’t think it would this bad.

  • John Whiting

    People who hate the government are now highly dependent on the government to right a wrong done to them by someone who applied their principles of self-interest. Handshake agreements that weren’t even recorded on audio tape as protection against frail human memories (let alone deliberate fraud). How is it that these people manage to simultaneously think the worst of human beings (“governments are evil”) and the best of human beings (“If he shakes my hand he’s honest and trust-worthy”) at the very same time?

    Before they did these things in their own self-interest, didn’t they trouble to enlighten themselves about what was going on, what could go on, and what steps they could take to protect themselves? Doesn’t the very concept of enlightened self-interest require a person to live in reality, and not in a world of what they wish was true instead?

    • Adriana Pena

      Not the mention those who having thrown away their life savings are now living on Social Security. I hope they have the wits to be thankful for it.

  • Bevin Chu

    Wow. The authoritarian statists really are swarming out of the woodwork to indulge in Schadenfreude aren’t they?

    They are alleging that “Libertarians defrauded libertarians”.

    Not hardly.

    By definition libertarians respect others’ rights, in particular, property rights.
    By definition anyone who engages in fraud is not a libertarian.

    No, libertarians did not defraud libertarians. A non-libertarian defrauded libertarians.

    The fact is that anyone can become a victim of fraud. Libertarians can become victims of fraud, just as socialists can become victims of fraud.

    One’s political beliefs have no direct bearing on whether someone they deal with behaves dishonorably.

    • David Heffron

      But it does have a bearing on how to react when someone behaves dishonorably. In the case of a Libertarian your only option will be to raise a posse and use physical violence to recover the loss.

      • mary

        Not so. There are many degrees of libertarianism. So libertarians favor the “night watchman” state where the gov’t controls the police, courts and national defense. For the people, using the justice system is consistent with their views.

        • David Heffron

          Ah, so they are happy with the a government that provides all the things they want and everyone else can get lost. Right. Got you.

          • Cathy

            This is nonsensical. Wouldn’t everyone be happy with “a government that provides all the things they want?” Where this “get lost” fits in, who knows? If you’d like to converse to gain understanding, great. Otherwise, why don’t you troll somewhere else. You won’t make any converts here with your nonsense.

          • David Heffron

            No, it’s not nonsense. There are things that the government provide that I’m not happy with.

            But I understand that I’m not the only person in the world.

    • Adriana Pena

      We do not say that Libertarians defraud libertarians. We say that Libertarians make easy marks for conmen because they refuse the protections of governemtn they think they do not need.

  • Óðinn

    Haha. Too funny!

  • Hingle McCringleberry

    Maybe living in a country where there’s a government with laws designed to protect people from fraud isn’t such a bad idea……..

  • Dave Burke

    Why did a bunch of Libertarians choose a country with strict gun laws and free government healthcare? Do they *ever* practice what they preach, or are they all a bunch of hypocrites?

    >>
    Being libertarians, many of GGC’s investors were against the use of government courts to correct the injustices and receive the property they paid for. But what they found was that there simply was no other way to regain their stolen property without doing so.
    >>

    And that’s just one of the many reasons why libertarianism doesn’t work.

    • David Heffron

      Of course, libertarians will just say that they weren’t real libertarians.

      • Cathy

        Ken Johnson himself says that he’s not a libertarian, not us. One wonders why, when you don’t know the facts, you post an opinion.

    • mary

      No it’s not. It is just one of the many ways that the state stamps out opposition to its total control.

      • Dave Burke

        You didn’t answer my original question. Care for a shot at it?

        >>
        No it’s not. It is just one of the many ways that the state stamps out opposition to its total control.
        >>

        Nonsense. You can recover your losses from someone without resorting to the state for assistance, provided the person you’re dealing with is honest enough to restore your money. If they’re not, you can seek recourse via the legal system, which protects your property rights and provides a means to seek redress. But if you’re a Libertarian, what do you do? How do Libertarians propose to solve legal issues like this without a state legal system?

        • mary

          Are you being deliberately obtuse? For us to pursue our private means of restitution would have required what the statists call “vigilante justice.” We would be subjecting ourselves to govt attack.

          Stop confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Many libertarians favor a “watchman state” which is consistent with using the courts.

Copyright © 2017 · Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Facebook 43.8KFans
Twitter 23.3KFollowers
Youtube 57KSubscriber
tdv-logo-textonly

As Seen On: tdv-as-seen-on

Copyright 2016 The Dollar Vigilante. All Rights Reserved.

POWERED BY AUTONOMITE

Home   Terms of Service   Privacy Policy   Affiliate Registration

Sign in to your account