Ask the Libertarian

[Liberal]

Wonderful!

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by KidCharlemagne *
**Dewey,
As I’m sure you know, lighthouses are the classic case of what classical economists consider to be a public good - the bane of libertarians. Like I said in my first post, I believe that certain infrastructural things best be left to government and lighthouses would probably be one of them. Having said that, virtually all of the lighthouses built in England in the 18th century were privately funded and immensely profitable. Lighthouses were patented and the rights sold off and tolls were taken for passage. Some economist used this research to debunk the myth that lighthouses would never get build without public funding (I think Coase). I am no expert on how lighthouses really work so I’ll have to wing it:

One option would be to pay the owner of the patent (yes there are libertarians who believe in intellectual property rights) not to sell a license to anyone within a mile of his dock. He could also pay the land owners to not allow the building of docks on property surrounding his dock. **

Kid: a lot this has been covered already, but here goes: Coase does ably demonstrate that lighthouses need not be the exclusive provence of government. However, it remains true that even private lighthouses need government help to collect on harborage fees. Even the 18th century British lighthouses that Coase refers to utilized the services of the local tax collection official.

And, of course, this is even more true where a lighthouse is built principally for navigation rather than as a marker for a harborage.

I’m not sure where your notion of a patent comes into play here (or any other type of IP, for that matter), so you may want to expand on that.

The option to pay additional landowners is plausible, but it assumes that the lighthouse will still be financially feasible after throwing on all these additional costs. Obviously the answer to that will be highly fact-dependent (the geographic characteristics of the harbor in question, etc.) but I think at the end of the day that model yields significantly fewer lighthouses than you have under the current system.

[Liberal]

MODERATOR

Will you close this thread? Thank you. (I’m sending an email as well.)

And thanks to everyone who participated in good faith.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Would you crash an “Ask the Muslim” thread with rants about the Qu’ran? It is, in my opinion, jerkish behavior.

I am not ranting. I am asking difficult questions. There is a difference.

And yes, were I more interested in Muslim thought, I would feel no qualms about asking in an “Ask the Muslim” thread about apparent contradictions or other errors in the Qu’ran. I would do the same for the Bible in an “Ask the Christian” thread or the Book of Mormon in an “Ask the Mormon” thread.**

This thread was intended as educational for people who, like you, do not understand the libertarian philosophy. In fact, I opened it inspired by you, because you said that you would like to have a better understanding.**

What do you think is more educational: a madrassa where students are only memorize the Qu’ran and take its answers without question, or a comparative religion class where both the benefits and flaws of Islam are examined? Which set of students do you believe will have a better grasp of Islam?**

So far, I don’t see much that indicates a correlation between your words and your deeds. You say that you respect me, and yet you will not refrain from arguing in this thread despite my request. You say that you’re interested in learning more, and yet you stay anchored to a single issue (lighthouses) and ignore my answers so you can preach.**

Please point out where I have been “preaching.” I have been asking difficult questions. I do not think some of your answers have fully addressed those questions, which is why I have continuted to pursue followup questions. Asking tough questions != preaching.**

You’re presuming (and you’ve done this all along) that Libertaria will be a mixture of libertarian and nonlibertarian principles, and that is not the case. For example, you’re presuming that a claim of property is a seizure of it. And yet, even while you recoil at the notion of someone owning land with water on it (deep water, to be sure, but just water), you apparently have no problem that the system that you’re defending stole its land through war and conquest.**

And you accuse me of preaching? :rolleyes:

There are serious practical problems with private ownership of deep water. See infra.**

Now, please listen. This directly addresses your question and all its underlying questions. Property that is previously owned may be owned by transfer of ownership with proof of title or receipt. (Please consider the term “title” to mean a general documenation of ownership and not a nonlibertarian legal term.) Property that is not previously titled may be owned by possession. And property that is not previously possessed may be owned by claim.**

But how on earth does one “claim” deep water? If the world decides to go Libertopian tomorrow, and I claim the Atlantic Ocean as my own, is it mine? Just by my uttering the words “I claim the Atlantic”?

Scale it down some. Say I claim New York harbor so I can collect passage fees. Again, do my mere words give me title? Or do I need to do something, like build a lighthouse? Does it matter that the lighthouse isn’t in the middle of the harbor? Why or why not? **

…because you are elbowing your way past everyone else in order to take over the thread and espouse your nonlibertarian point of view like an angry fundamentalist Christian in an “Ask the Muslim” thread.**

1. Kindly show where I’m “espousing my point of view.” I haven’t advocated much of anything in this thread. I’ve just pointed to difficulties in how a pure libertarian society would cope with certain situations.

2. Odd that you get offended by the (benign, IMO) use of “Libertopia” in the Pit, but somehow think that comparing me to a angry, raving Christian fundamentalist is acceptable in IMHO.

3. It is hard to see how I’m “elbowing” past anyone. I don’t think my posts have prevented anyone else from posting. I would be very interested to hear from any Doper who feels that my posts have somehow prevented them from asking questions of their own.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**MODERATOR

Will you close this thread? Thank you. (I’m sending an email as well.)

And thanks to everyone who participated in good faith. **

While I respect whatever the mods decide to do, and I understand the presumption in favor of closure at an OP’s request, I would ask that this thread be kept open. At the very least, I’d like to hear an answer to my question about committment of the mentally ill.

(BTW, Lib, are you accusing me of bad faith?)

[Desmostylus]

(Check the pit, Dewey)

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Thanks Desmo.

[Billdo]

Lib, after reading this thread, I’ve got a question about the “ownership” of waterways.

The original distance offshore that a nation could claim as its national waters was three nautical miles (or one nautical league). Anything beyond three miles from land was considered High Seas. (Now there are also a 12-mile limit and 200 mile economic exclusion zones, but I digress.)

The “3-mile limit” was originally internationally agreed upon because it was the approximate range at which a shore battery could fire upon vessels. In other words, it was the range at which a government could defend its shores through force (shore batteries being rather useless offensively).

From this I’m guessing that under your libertarian system a person can own a waterway to the extent that the person (or that person’s contracted government) can effectively prevent outsiders from sailing through it. Would that be the case?

If that is the case, what is to prevent a pirate fleet more powerful than the shore defenses or navy that the owner may have contracted for from forcably occupying the waterway?

[Czarcasm]

If the person starting the “Ask The…” thread no longer wishes to participate in said thread, I think the best course of action is to close the thread.