I’m having a hard time getting a grip on the notion of “coercion.” Let’s take taxes to pay for public roads, for example, since the privatization of roads was discussed earlier.
How is it “coercion” for the government to own roads and tax people who use the roads? Is the point that the taxation does not depend on your use of the roads? In other words, if the government instead said “You decide if you want to use the roads or not, and if you do you have to pay ‘x’ tax” then would that be fine, from a libertarian standpoint?
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never said that libertarianism would create a utopia. In fact, I’ve said the opposite: that it would create a context wherein a man could succeed only by his own hard work, wits, and determination, and even then he might fail.
With respect to your responsive force, Libertaria does not recognize that as coercion, and would not move against you.
Interesting side bet you’re considering, there. Will you also bet that you wouldn’t accuse me of engaging in wackiness?
Well, as I said, I can’t stop corruption in government. Contrary to what you might think, I have no illusions about any utopia. I simply believe that basing a society on the libertarian principle offers the best chance of freedom and happiness for every individual.
If I’m some sort of monster for that, deserving of scorn and derision, then so be it. So far in this thread, I’ve been called a weasel, an extremist, and a wacko when all I am advocating is that all peaceful honest people be allowed the freedom to pursue their own happiness in their own way. You might perceive in me a persecution complex, but I do not.
The reason I hang in there is because some people are genuinely interested in answers.
Libertarianism, has always struck me as the kind of ideal system that only comes close to working under very special circumstances. You pretty much have to be a physically fit, hard-working farmer in the pre-electronic age (no later than the 1700-1800’s) with unlimited open land for future generations to settle with their own farms. The Boers had this going for awhile in South Africa but the outside world always intrudes. You can be reasonable and self-sufficient only as long as you (or you and your neighbors) can out-gun the bandits. In their case the British, the Zulus, and others, all wanting the same thing (the Boer’s land and resources) pushing and imposing their ideas until the Boers had no choice but to create the complicated governing systems needed (taxes, standing military, legislature, infrastructure) to be defend themselves if they didn’t they would have been displaced and South Africa would have been settled by someone else.
I believe that alot of people have a hazy view of American history along these lines. They think that most early founders of our nation lived on huge Monticello-like estates and were good nieghbors with each other. There are always going to be young, old, feeble, lazy, handicapped, stupid, ill and just downright evil people in the world to make ant plan of a perfect society an eventual compromise. Thus the plan fails.
Looong introduction to a short question, If I’m on the right track, and Libertarianism only governs the people who want to be governed, what do they do about the mobs who aren’t ‘governed’ but still there? coerce them into detention camps? Show them to the borders? Re-education camps? Terminate them?
Sorry that this got overlooked in the shuffle, Cuauhtemoc. I’m keeping up as best I can
The reason guns deter people is because they fear being shot. The guns that I was referring to with respect to your prior post were the guns of government.
Regarding your related question, I’ve given this link a number of times. If you look at it, you will see that a pacifist (who opposes all force) is a libertarian by definition, since initial force is included in all force.
The whole purpose of a government, ethically speaking, is to protect your rights and property when you cannot. You should not have to bear arms yourself for your government to protect you.
So long as they are peaceful and honest, they are no concern of the government. Only when they initiate force or fraud against a citizen of Libertaria are they a concern.
Yes, it would. But that’s not a tax; it’s a voluntary fee.
Voluntary payment is like going into Wal-Mart, finding what you want, and paying for it as you leave the store.
A tax is like going into Wal-Mart, being greeted at the door by armed thugs who take your wallet by force, remove a portion, give you whatever they feel like giving you (if anything), and then sending you on your way.
McDonald’s is in a business where PR is a valuable asset, though. Helping sick kiddies strikes an emotional chord. I doubt you’d get the same “awwww” factor from building and maintaining a lighthouse.
While I think charity is a good thing that ought to be encouraged, a system of government that relies on charity 100% for public goods like lighthouses will not be able to produce those goods in adequate number.**
Duties imposed by a government entity, I might add – the colonial governorship.**
Sandy Hook was financed by two lotteries authorized by an Act of New York Colony and the Provincial Congress of New York, respectively (part of the second lottery also went to finance other government activity). While merchants were the driving force behind the project, operation of the lighthouse remained with the government. Operations were funded by a levy on all boats using the channel entering New York Harbor. Cite.
This raises some interesting questions. Who owns the harbor in Libertopia? By what right can they force a noncontracting boat to pay a levy? What if the boat isn’t stopping in New York, but is continuing up the Hudson River? What if the boat is traveling in the daytime, and thus doesn’t make use of the lighthouse?**
Cape Henlopen was built at the urging of Philadelphia businessmen, but the Philedelphia provinical assembly was actually responsible for the construction. The initial construction was financed via lottery, and the final stages financed by assembly-backed Lighthouse Bonds. The lighthouse was operated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prior to the US taking over lighthouse operations. Cite.**
Even if we stipulate that Cape Henlopen and Sandy Hook were private projects (and as we can see, they were not), that leaves ten other early colonial lighthouses builty by government authority, and ten more built during the revolutionary period, also built by government authority.
There is a reason the merchants of the time enlisted government aid: the projects were too capital-intensive for them to build on their own, and they lacked the firepower and the legal authority to impose financing levies.
Oops, I missed a detail. No, the point is not that the taxation does not depend on your use of the roads. The point is that a government’s legitimacy depends on your consent.
I don’t know of any business that doesn’t find it important to create good relations with its customer — and all the more so if the business is not subsidized by corporate welfare or special legislation.
(What about the lighthouses?)
After just a bit of research at Cato, I found reference to “The Lighthouse in Economics”, by Ronald Coase in the Journal of Law and Economics, 17: 357-376, 1974.
The short of it is this: Coase found that the British lighthouse system evolved mostly privately. By 1820, 75% of all lighthouses had been build by indivuals.
There was also a reference to Famous Fables in Economics: Myths of Market Failures, by Dan Spulber, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. But I haven’t read it.
I’m sure there is more material available if you care to give it a look.
You overlooked the one part of my post that was specifically a question: “This raises some interesting questions. Who owns the harbor in Libertopia? By what right can they force a noncontracting boat to pay a levy? What if the boat isn’t stopping in New York, but is continuing up the Hudson River? What if the boat is traveling in the daytime, and thus doesn’t make use of the lighthouse?”
And I’m not sure why you feel so strongly about everything being placed in question form when the point you’re asked to address is clear. Are you channeling Alex Trebek?
I’ll look into the lighthouse sources you recommend and get back to you.
And re: PR – I agree PR is important (that was my point). But I don’t think enough value in PR to fund all the things that you suggest should be handled by charity, which was my point.
Whoever buys the harbor owns the harbor. And they cannot collect a fee from a boat not using their harbor. But they can collect a fee even in the daytime if a boat docks there.
While you’re researching, be sure to check out F. A. Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order. It helps to explain why, when things like lighthouses are needed in a free-market, they happen. Hayek won his Nobel Prize in economics for proving that socialism has a fatal flaw: it is unable to set prices.
10 families live on a cul de sac. Mr. Big owns the road. There is no way to get from the homes to the major thoroughfares without driving for a little while on the cul de sac road. Knowing that the home owners have no choice, what is to prevent Mr. Big from charging a fee of $100 per trip just to drive on this road?
Another question:
Joe was in a terrible accident and is now paralyzed from the neck down. He can’t work at all. If there isn’t enough private charity money to pay for his room and board, would he just starve?
Coase is right when he says that lighthouses need not be a purely governmental function. But it is inaccurate to say that lighthouses would exist without government cooperation. The reason is simple: in those cases where lighthouses are built by the private sector, they are financed by harbor fees – fees collected and imposed by a local government official. Since the harbor waters are not owned by anyone (and bear in mind, we’re not talking about some cove in a lagoon here), an anchored boat isn’t trespassing, so some initial coercive government force is needed to collect the tax (which is really all the “fee” is). That the tax is then distributed to the lighthouse operators doesn’t change the fact that government force is needed to collect.
I don’t understand your question. Are you asking whether people in Libertaria who own docks may charge people to dock at them? Or are you asking whether a government protecting the dock owner is coercive?
I didn’t see your post before my last one. This is an important point.
We aren’t talking about a dock or pier that clearly has ownership, nor are we talking about a Gilligan’s Island-size cove. We’re talking about a large body of water that is sheltered from rough seas. New York harbor, for example, is a vast seaway.
I know libertarians believe there should be no such thing as public property, but does that extend to freedom of the seas? How large must a seaway be before it cannot be owned? Can I “own” a part of the Atlantic Ocean and charge a fee for passage?
