# Ask the Libertarian **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 19, 2002, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918 "2002-12-19T22:51:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/21 "2002-12-20T11:14:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried \* > \*\*OK, I have to ask, because I never saw the original thread: what was the “giant squid” objection to a Libertarian government? \*\* There was the question of whether libertarianism applied to animals. I explained that it is a _political_ philosophy, and as such (the word “politics” comes from the Greek [symbol]politika[/symbol]) applies only to people. It was then asked whether libertarianism would apply to any creatures, such as aliens, who have the same sentience as man. I said that it would. I was then asked what would happen in Libertaria if giant sentient squids who used to live on land were to arise from the ocean floor to reclaim their ancient property that was stolen from them. For that thread, it was a rather typical hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/22 "2002-12-20T11:23:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Swinger \* > \*\*While I agree with most libertarian principles, one thing I’ve always been uneasy about is privatization of the road system and the practical workings thereof. > > It seems very impractical and wasteful to have competing privately-owned road systems, and it would be pretty much impossible in densely-populated areas. But having a single profit-oriented entity control most or all of the major roads in an area would give that entity quite a bit of control over that area, which is probably asking for trouble. > > The same basic idea also applies to things like telephone and electrical lines. > > So my question is, how would the system of roads work in a purely libertarian society? If you can address utilities (phone, power, sewer, water, etc.) in general as well, that would be great. > > Cool thread, by the way. Looking forward to reading all the questions and answers! \*\* Thanks, Swinger! Many libertarian think tanks, like the [Cato Institute](http://www.cato.org) have addressed this matter thoroughly. The roads could work like the Autobahn, which Germany announced in 1993 that it was selling. They could be paid for by the users either with tolls or with yearly invoicings. They could be paid for by the businesses that they lead to. They could be paid for by corporations (although in Libertaria, they would not have the luxury of "limited liability). They could be paid for by local, regional, and national cooperatives, much as many utility companies (including the one that I get my own power from) do. And there are any number of other ways. See the link I gave you as a starting point for very many articles on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/23 "2002-12-20T11:35:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Well, the question as I see it is “does libertarian philosophy lead to war in this situation?” > > The Stricker part is important. Stricker is a noncontracting party to either Libertaria New York (“LNY”) or Libertaria Los Angeles (“LLA”). Stricker damages the property of Fred, a LNY contracting party. He then flees and barricades himself Sally’s basement – unbeknownst to Sally, an LLA contracting party who is on vacation. > > The point is thus: Sally is an innocent party here. She didn’t hurt anyone or damage anyone’s property. But under the terms of libertarian philosophy as you’ve described it, LNY is required to initiate force against Sally’s property in order to bring Stricker to justice. > > This leads to LLA’s demand that LNY make Sally whole, which LNY is not obligated to do because Sally has not contracted with them. This in turn leads LLA to try to make Sally whole by initiating force against LNY. Which leads to war between LNY and LLA. > > The ultimate initial force is, of course, Stricker. But that’s going to be cold comfort to Sally, who again is a wholly innocent party. Sally will rightfully see LNY’s damage to her property as an initiation of force against _her_, even if it is a retaliatory force against _Stricker_. > > So the question is, is this the result in a perfect libertarian world? If not, why not? \*\* LNY is acting as a proxy (or agent) for Fred. In essence, it does whatever Fred would do himself were he capable. His beef (and his government’s) is with Stricker, not Sally. LNY is not exempt from ethics just because it is a government, anymore than Fred is. In fact, it represents the culmination of decent ethical behavior. LLA may rightfully demand that LNY make Sally whole, just as it may if Fred did the damage himself. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/24 "2002-12-20T11:36:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*And one additional question: in a perfect libertarian society, who pays for lighthouses? (Think about it for a minute.) \*\* […thinking…] Whoever owns them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/25 "2002-12-20T11:44:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cuauhtemoc \* > \*\*IANALibertarian, but what is the purpose of some of these hypotheticals? Couldn’t you introduce crazy hypotheticals into a discussion of our current system of government and project equally confusing results? What if the President decided to launch a nuclear strike against Finland for no reason? What if the entire Supreme Court got together and decided to make a bunch of stupid crazy rulings unless they got big pay raises? What if the voters elected Emeril Lagasse president? I can understand why **Libertarian** would want to keep the more unlikely hypotheticals out of the debate. > > Now, my questions are these: > > 1. You said in one of the other threadsI could be a smartass and say “Did you type that with a straight face,” but I know you’re a little _sensitive_ where your philosophy is concerned (don’t chew my face off for this, you admitted as much in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2743913#post2743913) post) so my _sincere_ question is, do you think it is easier for an evil person to exploit our current system of government than it would be for said evil person to exploit a Libertarian government? How so? Wouldn’t a government with such little power have a much harder time dealing with evil people? Or is dealing with evildoers also the responsibility of the individual? > > 2. The minorities in our society (religious, ethnic, political, etc.) can expect some degree of protection from our government. Under Libertarianism, I understand that it’s wrong for a member or members of the majority to coerce members of the minority. But sometimes mobs rule. What is the Libertarian government going to do about it? What deters people from going apeshit and really doing a job on the minority? > > 3. The question that came to me while reading through that Pit thread: Dude, what happened to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148739)? \*\* 1. The libertarian government does not have “such little power”. In fact, its military might must of necessity be on par with any in the world. The powers that it lacks are legislative in nature. There is no Senator Fatcat to return a favor to Mr. Tycoon by writing a special law. That said, however, a libertarian government is as susceptible to corruption as any. 2. Guns. 3. Lordy. You think I’m tight now, you should have seen me before! 😃 Of course, if you’ll examine the dates, you’ll see that the MPSIMS thread came just when I decided no longer to bear the ridicule from Dewey. It dawned on me then that it just isn’t worth it. I think I explained the matter rather sufficiently in the linked thread. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/26 "2002-12-20T11:45:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Erika \* > \*\*For the most part, I really like Libertarian ideas; I think they make a whole lot of sense. > > My problem comes in getting from here to there. I agree that if we could _poof_ create a new society and get to pick the government, that it would ideally be Libertarian. I get completely lost, however, when I try to work out a way to get from here [here being the current US government] to a Libertarian one. Sure - you can make small changes in that direction, but I’m not seeing how supporting changes in the drug laws, say, and pushing for priviatization of various currently govenment activities will get us to Libertarianism without a huge mess somewhere in the middle. > > So I guess my question is - is there a smooth way to get from here to there? \*\* I don’t think so, Erika. Like you, I believe that the best bet is to start from scratch. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/27 "2002-12-20T11:48:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elfkin477 \* > \*\ ***Libertarian** , I have a hypothetical for you: suppose it’s time to vote in the presidential election, and, though the Libertarian candidate is a good guy/gal the polls predict that s/he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. You’re going to stick to your guns and vote for him or her, though(on principal, to encourage the formation of a major3 party system, whatever your reasons). Supposing that all Libertarians feel the same, and vote the same (for the lib instead of another candidate), who is more likely to be hurt from the loss of your votes? The Dems or the Republicans? \*\* It depends on the race. For judgeships, sheriffs, and that sort of thing, the Republicans will be hurt. For tax collectors, auditors, treasurers and so on, the Democrats will be hurt. For president, it depends — the further right wing he is, the more it will hurt the Republicans, while the further left wing he is, the more it will hurt the Democrats. Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/28 "2002-12-20T11:51:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Already in Use \* > \*\*Do you think that the philosophical, rather than pragmatic, leanings of many Libertarians alienate voters for Libertarian candidates because of the extremism of Libertarian philosophy? By extremism, I don’t mean that Libertarians are going to go around slaughtering innocent people or anything. But what I mean is that it seems that privatization of almost every government service, such as roads, would take a long time to do without creating total chaos. (I could very well be wrong.) But I do find that the Libertarians more closely approximate my views, and those of a significant number of Americans, than the Republicans or Democrats. That is, I am a hard-liner on most of the Bill of Rights (although somewhat moderate on the Second Amendment), and I find that the Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and neo-fascists (e.g., people like John Ashcroft, or supporters of John Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness Program), so their views are abhorrent to me. Yet, at the same time, I don’t like the Democratic reliance on government programs, or their greater support for welfare, due to my capitalist/individualist values. And neither party really seems to support the legalization of drugs, which I think would reduce drug-related crime and protect individual privacy. Most Democrats and Republicans even argue for the continued illegality of marijuana, a drug which, although harmful to individual health, doesn’t predispose users to criminal behavior. So, because of my views on these issues, I would very much like voting for moderately Libertarian candidates. However, I don’t support privatization of ALL government services, or legalization of victimless crimes that put people at risk (like drunk driving). So to reiterate my question, do you think that the radical hyper-philosophical nature of Libertarianism alienates voters who support many of its basic political platforms? (The enumeration of my personal political views in this post isn’t intended to spark a debate on them, but merely to give examples for the way I think many voters feel in order to help explain my question.) \*\* Yes, I do. I think that Libertarian candidates come across as intellectual fops. They don’t communicate well either, otherwise you wouldn’t be thinking that they want to eliminate drunk driving laws. A “moderate libertarian” who might appeal to you would likely be [Ron Paul](http://www.house.gov/paul/), the current Congressman from Texas, and former Libertarian Party candidate for president. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/29 "2002-12-20T12:42:43Z")
So what is to stop the more “run of the mill” Libertarians, such as yourself, from splitting from the party and founding another? A great many of the people I know would vote libertarian, if there were a slightly more moderate approach to the Libertarian ideal. I myself would. But the extremist viewpoint that I’ve seen when researching libertarianism scares me a bit. ---
**Author:** ![stofsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@stofsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stofsky)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/30 "2002-12-20T12:44:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Well, the archangel Gabriel blasted the mean man with trumpet sounds until he relented. Why should you get to suppose whatever you want, but I may suppose nothing? Does that really sound fair to you? 🙂 \*\* Depends on the likelyhood of the supposition. But I guess Gabe coming down is about equivalent to: > [@](#): > > all its transactions were peaceful and honest. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/31 "2002-12-20T13:07:27Z")
So, just to be clear, people do seem to be very much subject to private and economic coercion, just not public or physical coercion? ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/32 "2002-12-20T14:14:39Z")
Lib, at my monthly Birch meeting last night, the guy (there were only 3 there) gave me a pamphlet on Libertarianism. He is sortof one, I think, unless i misunderstand. They seem to be in agreement with your party, do you see anything to agree wtih them about? ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/33 "2002-12-20T14:33:01Z")
**Libertarian** , thank you for your answers. I have a follow-up to #2: You feel that guns will deter the majority from violating the rights of the minority. I’d be interested in hearing you explain the how and why of that. And on a related note, what about people who have a religious or moral objection to carrying firearms? Or, for that matter, people who just don’t like guns? Would it be fair to say they’re essentially screwed in Libertarian society? It seems to me that in Libertaria, you either carry a gun or you live or die at the whim of your well-armed neighbors. Would I be employing fallacious logic if I said “I don’t want to live in Libertaria because if I did, I’d have to carry a gun”? ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/34 "2002-12-20T14:39:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*Lib, > at my monthly Birch meeting last night, the guy (there were only 3 there) gave me a pamphlet on Libertarianism. > He is sortof one, I think, unless i misunderstand. > They seem to be in agreement with your party, do you see anything to agree wtih them about? \*\* Wha? Huh? Birch? As in [the John Birch Society](http://www.jbs.org)? _You?!?!?_ ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/35 "2002-12-20T15:09:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*LNY is acting as a proxy (or agent) for Fred. In essence, it does whatever Fred would do himself were he capable. His beef (and his government’s) is with Stricker, not Sally. LNY is not exempt from ethics just because it is a government, anymore than Fred is. In fact, it represents the culmination of decent ethical behavior. LLA may rightfully demand that LNY make Sally whole, just as it may if Fred did the damage himself. \*\* But why, exactly, is LNY liable to Sally or LLA? Neither LLA nor Sally are contracting parties to LNY. Why wouldn’t LNY simply say “we are only obligated to those in privity of contract with us, so get bent?” You are banking on LNY (and its constituent citizens) to act ethically even though doing so is not in their self-interest. And that is a big problem with a pure libertarian state. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/36 "2002-12-20T15:11:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cuauhtemoc \* > \*\*Wha? Huh? Birch? As in [the John Birch Society](http://www.jbs.org)? _You?!?!?_ \*\* Yes, me. I’ve told them I am the only Green Bircher. No, I am not nuts. I read Ralph Eppersons books and found myself agreeing with them. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/37 "2002-12-20T15:15:23Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > [@](#): > > \*\*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow > And one additional question: in a perfect libertarian society, who pays for lighthouses? (Think about it for a minute.) > […thinking…] Whoever owns them. \*\* You miss the point. What you are effectively saying is that there will be no lighthouses in Libertopia. Lighthouses are the quintessential public good (at least in the absence of new technology like GPS systems). They are set up for the benefit of the seafaring public. There is no way to collect on their use – the light is there, for all to see. How do ships navigate at night in a pre-satellite era Libertopia? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/38 "2002-12-20T15:18:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Of course, if you’ll examine the dates, you’ll see that the MPSIMS thread came just when I decided no longer to bear the ridicule from Dewey. \*\* I’m still flabbergasted that you consider my posts to be _ridiculing_ you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/39 "2002-12-20T15:56:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tristan \* > \*\*So what is to stop the more “run of the mill” Libertarians, such as yourself, from splitting from the party and founding another? > > A great many of the people I know would vote libertarian, if there were a slightly more moderate approach to the Libertarian ideal. > > I myself would. > > But the extremist viewpoint that I’ve seen when researching libertarianism scares me a bit. \*\* Nothing. That’s the whole point. You are given a mind at birth either by God or nature. It is yours to use. There is no natural or moral law that authorizes some other man to use it for you, and bend your will to his own. Your consent belongs to you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918/40 "2002-12-20T16:00:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amarinth \* > \*\*So, just to be clear, people do seem to be very much subject to private and economic coercion, just not public or physical coercion? \*\* I don’t know what you mean by private versus public coercion, but coercion is the initiation — _initiation_ — of force or fraud. That is what you’re guaranteed freedom from. Defensive or retaliatory force, i.e. responsive force, is not coercive. I’m not really sure what you mean by economic coercion, either. Do you mean something like, “I’ll offer you a million dollars for your wristwatch.”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian/143918.md?page=3)