There ARE certain works that it seems better that society as a whole provide for the whole. A sort of ‘natural monopoly’ in a sense.
But I would limit them. I recently got into an argument with a pal about a county bond issue for school playgrounds in our county. When I argued that it wasn’t something the government should be paying for in that manner he came back with “What? Don’t you like kids playing?” I countered with the fact that our local elementary school just added a new playground with donations and volunteer work.
It’s easy to say that some things should be provided by society (and it’s agent, the government) but it can quickly turn into a sense of entitlement. That has to be fought at every level in every way.
Question 2:
I don’t agree with FDA inspecting and ‘down checking’ foodstuffs and drugs. But I would agree with inspections that reported honestly. If the FDA tested say a drug and reported to the world that ‘Drugmaker X says that this drug will cure disease Y. We have found no correlation that this is the case. Take it if you will.’ I’d be all for that. And it would make the cases where they said, Drugmaker A claims that Drug B will cure disease C and it works like you wouldn’t believe" all the more potent.
At no point do I believe they should ban such items. Let the people be suckers if they want. They’re adults, let them make their own decisions. Note that this would also remove the cause for civil suits against the drugmakers.
Question 3:
I like the current judicial system because it’s enumerated in the constitution. And, as stated, I’m sticking with the United States Constitution. There are things I’d like changed, yes. But that’s why we have the amendment procedure in place.
Question 4:
Yes, pollution is a health hazard across the board. I wouldn’t only argue it on the basis of ‘harm to habitat’. The best system I’ve seen for this assumes that a certain amount of pollution is inevitable in an industrialized society (a presumption I find reasonable). Society can set what level it feels comfortable with and allow companies to trade the ability to pollute as marketable commodities. I like a system that encourages people to innovate solutions to problems and I think that does so.
Question #5:
I always vote. Locally it’s pretty straightforward because I can find out quite a bit about the candidates simply by stopping in.
Nationally it’s more problematic. I do vote libertarian when the candidate isn’t insanely dogmatic about it (show a little flexibility, people!). If not I tend to pick and choose between the other candidates on a catch-as-catch-can basis.
Good idea starting this thread. I, too, have been turned off by the L party and their seeming dominance by fringe groups (anarchists, scifi nuts, etc).
I was somewhat surprised by your answer to Priceguy about drugs. I often hear that from L party guys (Brown, for example) when they are asked the same question. Why does that pop up so often as the FIRST thing to go after. Seems like fear of illegal drugs are so embedded in our society that that is a no win issue at this point. I’d put legalizing drugs pretty far down on the list for PLs.
Better to concentrate on ecomomic issues (like taxes) and leave the whole drug thing alone, or at least drop it down on the priority list. Taxes affect every person every day. They shape business decisions and allow the gov’t to control aspects of our lives that it has no business interfering with.
Let me rephrase the question Priceguy asked you. Let’s take several topics and rank them as “A” list and “B” list in terms of needing to be pushed in the libertarian directoin:
Taxation
Gun Control
Abortion
Health Care
Drugs
Education
Defense (external stuff)
Social Security
Homeland Security (internal stuff)
Immigration (legal and illegal)
I think this pretty much covers the high level topics dominating politics in recent years.
Property Taxes have always struck me as encouraging people not to own land and therefore detrimental to the economy. Plus with the mortgage interest deduction you take and give based upon the same thing! I’m presuming here that most mortgages are never actually paid off (in my experience that’s true).
Sales taxes are by nature regressive, I admit. And to a point they also work against economic growth. But, contrary to the current administration I don’t believe that each individuals major contribution is as a consumer.
A personal income tax is probably my favorite. But I’d prefer a simple one with no deductions. A flat tax isn’t politically feasible in the current climate so I’d favor one that has a few gradations of taxation and the overriding desire for honesty. No shelters, no deducations.
Corporate taxes I support in the same way I support personal income tax.
I am opposed to estate taxes because I believe that the underlying rationale for them is that a person inheriting them somehow doesn’t ‘deserve’ the inheritance. This presupposes that the individual is the basic element of society. I believe this is wrong. I believe the basic element of society is the family and inheritance from generation to generation helps promote familial success and acheivement.
The individual, on the other hand, is the basic element of anarchy
Disclaimer: I’m in line for three major inheritances and this may very well color my views. mea culpa
Social Security is no more nor less than a boondoggle. Far from being an ‘insurance’ at this point it’s an entitlement. I would prefer to see it treated as insurance. Don’t need it? Don’t get it.
But I see no politcally feasible means of effecting this change at the moment.
The wheels of capitalism are greased with the same thing is all societies: money. That lovely symbol of accounting for wealth that we all love. Hell, it even greased the wheels in non-capitalist countries like the former Soviet Union.
It’s my belief that practical libertarianism (and I’m limiting myself to answers on this alone) would work no matter what the skew of society is. As long as it provides people the chance to get ahead I don’t think there’s more than can be asked of a society.
No, the government should be able to advise only. Announce the danger and move on. Hell, cars are inherently dangerous…no one tries to ban them (though there are more people killed by cars each year than by renegade drugs).
I chose drugs because it’s been on my mind lately (stop the snickering!).
If I had to order those options I’d choose budgetary restraint first (one you left off unless you were lumping it into ‘taxation’) then most of the rest to be dealt with around the edges.
This is an interesting concept. I think the basic element of society is the community (in that a working society depends on some degree of cooperation outside the family unit), and the basic element of the community (or of anarchy, if that’s the system) is the family. Family is bound by blood, which transcends government. The individual is the basic element of the family, or whatever one’s ‘inner circle’ consists of, IMO.
Yes, I’d consider budgetary restraint as part of the whole taxation issue. Sounds like we’re in agreement that that area is #1 priority for PLs. I think Ls of all presuasions would be best served by letting go of the whole drug issue. It just scares people too much, and it is really a minor issue in most people’s lives.
Interesting that you defend inheritance by ivoking the family as opposed to the individual. I’ve always looked at it not as the right of kids to inheret property, but the right of the individuals to dispose of their property as they wish. Invoking the family as the basis would then open the door to tax someone who wanted to leave their property to a non family member. Maybe that’s a minor issue and doesn’t happen much.
Anyway, starting with the family, as opposed to the indivual, is an interesting idea. I’ll have to give that some thought, but off hand I can see that it would result in MANY differences in policy (as opposed to the individual being the basic unit).
How would a PL deal with securities reform. Recently certain CEOs (do I really need to name names?) have proven that they will recklessly steal billions in their own self-interest, rather than follow a more ‘benevolent’ approach (which is suppposed to occur in a standard libertarian world). However, even in the face of current regulations the results was economic collapse and worldwide loss of faith in the markets.
Notwitstanding the new legislation (Sarbanes-Oxley, etc), would a PL follow the standard libertarian (SL?) approach by advocating elimination of all government oversight in the markets or is their a way to regulate these fools (who always have and always will exist) in a PL world?
—I’ve always looked at it not as the right of kids to inheret property, but the right of the individuals to dispose of their property as they wish.—
I agree. This is definately so given that many parents work their butts off for the explicit purpose of being able to bequest a better lifestyle on their children.
There is certainly an implied contract between a CEO of a company and each individual shareholder. I’d say this comes down to a matter of fraud and therefore a civil hearing.
I don’t know how one would pre-emptively regulate this sort of situation other than placing a hold on the sales of stock in a firm by officers of that firm while they’re employed there.
Again, we find ourselves in a spot where the ‘traditional’ libertarian model is just so much wishing. We’re not about to eliminate the regulation of commerce any time soon.
Hrmm. I’d definitely do the above (restrict the sale of stock) and advocate the fiscal punishment of those who show through their actions that they place their own self-interest above that of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders.
Note: there can be two types of people that gut corporations: those seeking to do so for their own gain and those who are simply incompetent. The first can be remedied with lawsuits for losses incurred in someone running amok. The second shouldn’t be actionable against the person involved but you should have some stern words with the Board of Directors that hired the incompetent.
Speaking as another practical libertarian, though perhaps not as experienced as you are, I’ve got a question. It’s about here.
How do you think the nigh-universal information dispersal ability of the Web improves the potential for libertarian-like behavior, and/or results? It seems to be a very potent tool for expressions and community building.
And I’m not just talking about the Dope. Taking the FDA as an example, with the Web, it is now possible to go look any drug suggested up and see, “Drugmaker A, drug B, effect C, warning D” as well as ancedotal reports.
The same for any corporation’s buisness dealings, really. If someone is not a good neighbor, the web does tend to spike noise levels around them.
I would add to JC’s last post that, in many ways, securities regulation ought to be an ideal for government under Practical Libertarianism. The principal gist of securities regulation is disclosure: that is, the government requires that all publicly-traded companies honestly disclose certain aspects of their operations, particularly the financial aspects. What the government doesn’t do is try to tell investors whether or not they can or should buy a given stock. In the jargon of the securities lawyer, the SEC represents “disclosure based” rather than “merit based” regulation.
And that, to my mind, is a good ideal. The government is not acting as a nanny – it isn’t telling you what you can or can’t buy. It is, however, requiring that all investors have access to the same basic core of investing information. It’s the kind of regulation that improves rather than hindering the market.
This could be extended to other areas of regulation. The FDA is a good example: sell whatever shitty product you want, but dammit, you’d better disclose its defects to the consumer. That new drug isn’t tested yet? Fine, but you’d better tell consumers that before you sell to them. And if your drug has a spotty testing history, you’re obligated to clearly inform consumers of that fact as well.
This is more of a generally question about Libertarism than it’s practical application but as this thread seems a mite more civil than others on the subject I thought I’d ask it here if you don’t mind.
Are there any other countries with significant Libertarian movements apart from America? For my part I’m not aware of any, indeed to echo jjimm such ideas barely register here in the UK.
As a supplemental question, why do you think American’s are more receptive to such Libertarian ideas than folks here in Britain and elsewhere?
While it was more libertarian than today’s society, it’s not really close to a libertarian utopia. You had the police ready to arrest people trying to form labor unions, for instance… that’s pretty damn coercive.
Great thread, Jonathon. I’m somewhere between a PL and a Republican myself, though I usually vote Republican (since I can rarely find any non-whacko Libs running for office in my area). Anyway, to the point:
First of all, what’s your philosophy on foreign relations, particularly as concerns the need for military intervention? If I understand the non-practical libertarian stance, if an Evil Country took over Canada and Mexico, and made it clear that we were next on the to-do list, we should do nothing until they launch the first strike, rather than try to prevent Evil Country from getting hold of Mexico and Canada in the first place. Of course, I find this illogical, and support reasonable military effort to stem legitimate threats to us, our allies, and our interests. To what extent do you feel we should use our military, and what degree of influence do you believe we should have over foreign nations, if any? Which notable uses of our military over the past century or so do you feel were justified, and which do you feel were unnecessary?
Secondly, do you feel that, overall, we (speaking as a nation) are getting closer to or further from what you would perceive as the Ideal Practical Libertarian Society? How so?
Thirdly, what are your feelings on federally funded space exploration in general, NASA in particular?
And lastly, if you could abolish a few federal organizations, which ones would you axe first? Are there any that you feel we should have that we don’t?
Thanks in advance!
Jeff
I assume by “America,” you mean the US, since you asked about other countries. There is a sizable Libertarian party in Costa Rica- Movimiento Libertario.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance * In an ideal world I have my doubts that it’s government’s job to provide assistance to any of these groups.
There’s a pretty interesting economic model that concludes that those who bear greater risk should be insured by those who don’t. Specifically, it was in regards to a salesman/employer relationship, where the welfare maximizing solution has the employer providing a base pay plus a (smaller) commission rather than solely a (larger) commission since the employer spreads the risk around the staff of salesmen, whereas the salesman relies soley on himself.
The situation with welfare seems analogous, even in an ideal yet realistic world. People would take risks, and some would fail. They should be insured to some extent to give them the proper incentive to try. An acrobat’s reward may be the roar of the crowd; but there are probably few who’ll do it without a net. To get an optimal number of acrobats, then, someone should provide a net. So I see gov’t. provided social safety nets as a part of even an ideal libertarian state.
Remarks?
You might enjoy reading Steven Landsburg’s The Armchair Economist. In general, it is a great book. Perhaps the best popular book on economics available (no joke). But there is a chapter on the economics of science, that you may find interesting, where he discusses an application of a signaling model. I bring this up because, it seems to me, that there may very well be some people so utterly worthless that society would be better off paying the person to get out of the way. I’m not bringing this up as a substantative point, rather because it is so counter intuitive that it always makes me laugh. But the idea goes something like this. Employers face a market of potential employees. They’ve got to hire somebody. They run the risk of hiring some goon who is truly incompetent. Spread over society, this is expensive in terms of lost productivity and wasted resources. It might actually be cheaper for society to offer those folks just enough to get them to opt out of the job market. They do, of course, have the right to look for jobs and work. But when they do, they do more harm than good. So putting them on the dole would actually help society.
Of course, I’m not saying that there is a significant number of those people out there (a HR manager might disagree), but it is something to think about when you’re really bored.