Sure it is. They’re ripping themselves off.
Sure. But no one promises that there will be a market for your products. Some things are outside of the control of producers. A drop off in demand for a product can hurt producers just as much as a foriegn tarrif, and that’s just a fact of doing business.
Just an observation from a passing poster who is not currently in Moderator Mode:
While I appreciate the concerns that prompted this reply, there are legitimate responses from people who have actually contemplated Libertarianism. Whether their proposed solutions will work is, of course, a point of more discussion.
HOWEVER, injecting sarcasm into the thread this early is going to result in sarcastic replies (such as comments reflecting the failure of the current government(s) to ensure safety and standards when they create “burdensome” regulation (often having more to do with which company bribed which legislators) or when they impose standards that they do not, then, enforce).
If you truly wish to have a discussion to learn about Libertarian philosophy–even to oppose it–you are simply better off leaving the sarcasm out of the thread. If you need to express your concerns snidely, you are better off doing it in the Pit.
As noted, this is an observation from a non-Moderating poster. Certainly GD is rife with snide comments, sarcasm, and attempts at wit (with varying degrees of success). I am only pointing out that the way to actually exchange views will be to do so with enough courtesy to encourage your opponent to respond in kind.
Actually, it their funeral. Tarriftopia will have higher costs for its products when it tries to sell them back to Libertopia, or anywhere else for that matter. I think you’ll find that one of the few things that the overwhelming majority of economists agree on is that tarrifs are counterproductive in almost all circumstances, even when the tarrifs are one sided.
One of my many questions about Libertaria, that has probably been handled before, is about who will perform necessary duties that are fundamentally nonprofitable, such as caring for the elderly. Will such services exist only for the rich and for those who have saved up money themselves? If so, wouldn’t this system be pretty much the same thing as a tax, since you’re in effect forced to put away money for this purpose?
Of course it wouldn’t legally be a tax, or formally be a tax, but for all practical intents and purposes, what is the meaningful difference?
What other options? They can’t afford the safe housing.
Well, worse than what?
Sure a death trap might be better than living under a bridge but what kind of comparison is that? Thats like telling me to look chipper when I am being beat up becuase at least they don’t have bats.
Just how long do you think such a Certification company would survive if the buildings it certifies constantly burn down? Seriously, your scenarios assume that people are so stupid that they don’t look at the reputation of a Certifaction company.
You have to remember that libertopian residents would USED to having to do their own homework. In the US, we take a lot for granted because we assume that the government has taken care of us. In libertopia, it would probably be common to subscribe to periodicals like Consumers’ Reports, except that such periodicals would give us the info we now expect to not even have to know about because the government has taken care of it.
IANAL (heh), but I think the key difference is that, with a tax, your money would be involuntarily taken to help both yourself and other people.
The argument is that you are freely saving for retirement as opposed to being coerced. It is also argued that a private system will inherently be cheaper than the public solution.
Then again I am not sure I believe that. Would our telephone be cheaper under AT&T, our oil cheaper under Standard Oil, our railroads under those monopolies, our steel cheaper under Carnegie Steel? etc. etc.
Your example isn’t really any different from the need to feed oneself. Since I must buy food to live, isn’t the money spent on food a tax?
You can tell if something is a tax by asking yourself: will I be put in jail if I don’t pay this (assuming you are not under legal contract to pay it)? If the answer is “no”, then it’s not a tax.
You’ve misunderstood me. My point is that under the current system, some of our taxes are put away to pay for care for the elderly. Under the libertarian system, we would have to put away some of our money to pay for care for the elderly. What’s the practical difference? Why is the second system so much better? Because you can not put away the money, should you choose to do so, and then not be cared for when you’re old? No-one would pick that option except the terminally stupid, and while the terminally stupid do annoy me I think they should receive care like anyone else.
But at least the elderly have had the opportunity to save money. What about the severely handicapped? Who takes care of them?
No… You’re not setting aside money to care for “the elderly.” Your setting aside money to care for yourself. One elderly person, instead of all of them. It’s the age-old collectivism vs. individualism thing.
Presumably, private charities.
Sorry I haven’t replied sooner.
Nothing, and Apos covered why.
Let me give you the underlying theory first, and then I’ll answer you directly.
Children are rights bearing entities, and are the involuntary product of their parents’ praxes. As such, their birth is a coercion. The coercion is mitigated by the parents accepting responsibility as unary consenting parties to a contract of responsibility, since the children are incapable of giving meaningful consent. It is no different ethically than if they had adopted the child. The parents are bound to a contractual obligation, and Libertaria will enforce it. Therefore, the government must force the parents to raise the children competently and without abuse, using whatever force is necessary to accomplish the task. If it becomes untenable (say the parents fold their arms, close their eyes, and cover their ears, pretending they don’t know the enforcers are there), then the parents’ custodial privileges must be removed. But their responsibility remains. Whatever income they receive, that portion which arbitration determines to be necessary is given over to the childrens’ new caregivers, whether it be family, friends, neighbors, interested parties, or private or community charity. If the abuse you mention was coercive, then the parents have waived their liberty, and I’ll cover that principle next.
A person who coerces waives his rights in the process, because the initiation of force or deception has legitimized the use of responsive force. Therefore, in addition to restoring the victims monetarily and otherwise (possibly counseling, or what have you), coercers may forfeit their liberty altogether if they are unable to restore their victims. If, for example, the coercer stabs a man in the eye, making restoration of his sight impossilbe, then the coercer has waived all his rights, since no amount of responsive force will ever succeed in restoring the victim. In other words, he may be removed from society, stripped of his liberty, and forced to work, some or all of his earnings going to compensate the blind man for the rest of his (the blind man’s) life. Or, in a case in which your property is massively polluted, such that it cannot be repaired, you are entitled to take whatever assets from the polluter that are necessary to restore you to an equivalent status that you held before the coercion, even if it means that you become the new owner of the company.
Same difference. You’re still putting aside money. Instead of your particular coins and bills (or rather, your particular electrons or whatever they have these days) being used to care for someone else and someone else’s coins/bills/electrons being used to care for you, your own coins/bills/electrons are used to care for you, but you still have to set aside the money. That is, if you can spare it at all. What’s the practical difference?
So either people voluntarily give up their money, or these people die in the streets?
They would have unsafe housing as an additional option. It’s not a very desirable option, of course. But my point was that replacing government-enforced building safety codes with voluntary adherance to private certification standards, does not force the poor into unsafe buildings, it just makes those unsafe buildings available to them as an additional option.
To those we can afford certified safe housing, it doesn’t matter much whether that safety is government-enforced or market-driven. To those who can’t afford it, it doesn’t matter much either, because they could not have afforded the certified housing anyway. Hence, nobody is worse off than they would otherwise have been, and some people are slightly better off.
After all, if you’re going to create a political system which will lead to lots of people living below substenance level, the least you can do is allow them to live in slums.
Of course, Libertarianism usually also involves a total absence of social security and other safety nets, and that may put more people in a position where unsafe housing and living on the streets are their only options. But that is independent of the question of whether or not building safety should be government-enforced.
friend tomndeb,
you are right.
i would like to apologise to all involved in this thread for my sarcastic tone. it was uncalled for.
i hold a license from the state fire marshal to test and inspect fire alarms. i am also a licensed electrician. i am the lead installation, service and repair technician for a small midwestern fire alarm company. the hypothetical scenario i illustrated above is drawn from real buildings i have inspected.
these sort of things happen in our present system of an objective system of insepection and certification from agencies with legal enforcement powers. i find code violations of these sorts on a daily basis. i shudder to think what privatizing the permits and inspections functions of our government.
three days ago, a young man burned to death in an added bedroom in the basement of a rental house. the room had no window, and there was no direct exit from the basement. the smoke detector was installed, but not functional. the wiring in this bedroom was substandard. (his parents live a block away from us. we have known him since he was born.)
one of the largest rental property owners in my city refuses to do any repairs to the fire alarm equipment unless he is forced to comply by the state fire marshal.
substandard building practices are more widespread than you think.
lh
Or, more likely, families. Why does everyone leave families out of these equations?
I think I WILL start another Practical Libertarian thread. Everyone views us as wild-eyed lunatics.
No, it’s not. 
If I’m putting asside money solely for myself, then the amont of money I earn as a result of my hard work has a direct result on how well my retirement years are. If my money is going to a communal retirement fund, then the relationship between how much I save/earn/work and how well I retire is much less direct.
From what I understand about Libertarianism, yes. The uncertainty of care for the poor and oppressed is my biggest problem with it (and also my biggest problem with our current government…)
Which brings me right back to the food analogy. It is not coercion to have to take care of yourself either now or 20 years from now.
Yes. But do keep in mind that governemt provided welfare is a relatively recent phenomenon in the US. Yet, prior to the introduction of that phenomenon, people were NOT dying in the streets.
Assuming that you want to use the direct relationship to make your retirement years better rather than worse, what stops you from putting aside extra money? And under my system, the poor get to retire too.
I can see what libertarians are trying to do, I really can. It just seems to me like they’re trying to solve problems that don’t really exist, creating many new problems in the process.
They are dying in the streets right now.