Damnit!! Sorry about not previewing that post. 
I’m not much of a libertarian, but I agree with you here, except for one class of drugs–antibiotics.
If antibiotics were available over the counter, a sniffle would send a large number of people down to Eckerd for some amoxicillin, Augmentin, Zithromax, or Tequin (or whatever antibiotic managed to market to these folks the best). This is a neutral to slightly beneficial move for that patient, as it isn’t likely to hurt him and it might accidentally cure the small percentage of these people who have a bacterial infection and who pick the right drug.
Meanwhile, antibiotic resistance goes through the roof, and soon we can’t use those drugs when we actually need them.
A smart company would market a single pill that contained a little bit of every one of the drugs listed above and more, advertising itself as “broad spectrum”. This is exactly the way to breed resistance, but the people who take it will get better in seven days, as opposed to one week without the drug. The placebo effect and shrewd marketing would keep 'em coming back for more.
In other words, it’s a very real-world application of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Do you think this is an area where a bit of regulation might go a long way? Is this a problem that would not exist in a society free of drug regulation? Or would we simply count on the Free Market to keep coming up with better antibiotics as fast as we use up the ones we have?
Dr. J
If I can just slip into cynical mode for a while…
Let’s face it, people are idiots. People watch Jerry Springer. People participate in Temptation Island. People use vacuum cleaners to simulate oral sex. People become pregnant and catch AIDS because they didn’t wear condoms. And the fact that you would do the research doesn’t mean other people would. It’s not a nice fact, but it’s the truth.
So what, you say. If someone’s stupid enough to take drugs that screw them up, their problem. Not quite. What if I take a drug, have a psychotic episode and kill four people? They may be smart and discerning, but I wasn’t, and for that they die, their children become orphans, their parents childless, their beloved widowed. This is not some wild hypothetical situation, these things happen.
I agree that I should be able to make any choice regarding me and me alone, but there are next to no such choices in a society. To be blunt: How do we deal with stupid people?
While we’re on the subject of Landsburg, his “Fair Play” is an infinately more passionate work of quasi-libertarian thinking, not to mention funnier and more controversial (as well as more smug). And he takes on the Rawlsian arguments directly, as I think any serious proponent of a libertarian concept of justice must.
What is a libertarian?
Ordinarily, a libertarian is a person who opposes initial force. See Libertarian.Org.
Jonathan
I join others in thanking you for opening this debate. Since you are already swamped with tough questions and case law hypotheticals, I will keep my questions to a minimum and of a general nature.
(1) The ethic of ordinary libertarianism is noncoercion; that is, the principle of supressing initial force or fraud. What is the ethic of practical libertarianism?
(2) Does the government in practical libertarianism exercise eminent domain over the property of its citizens?
(3) Does a practical libertarian government govern people legitimately even without their consent?
(4) May a practical libertarian government seize the property of its citizens who have commited no crime?
(5) May a practical libertarian government redistribute the wealth of its citizens?
(6) Must a practical libertarian government be majoritarian? For example, if a majority of citizens or representatives of those citizens decide that rape is acceptable, does the minority have practical recourse?
(7) In practical libertarianism, does the state care for orphans and other indigents? If so, how?
(8) What are the essential differences between a Practical Libertarian and a Constitutionalist?
Thanks for your time and attention, and thanks again for the thread.
So, a libertarian is a skeptic?
A libertarian is a person who opposes initial force. See Libertarian.Org.
…be considered as a great source for calamari!
Fenris
Yumpin’ yiminy!
Give me a few minutes to get some coffee! I’ll be right back.
Everyone thinking happy thoughts? OK, then, lash yourself to the mast…
As mentioned there’s a chuck of the Costa Rican government that points that way. But I’m not aware of any current nation that is actually governed using libertarian practices.
As for why there’s a strong (as that may be) libertarian ‘receptivity’ in the United States (I won’t speak for other countries) I believe it comes through the American mythos that permeates the country. In a country where the strong independent is held up as the ideal there will always be those who wish to bring that about. Look at our literature: Mark Twains Huckleberry Finn certains around a boy and a slave who run off to attain independence. Hell, Alcott’s Little House on the Prairie has a large measure of ‘screw you city-folks, I’m heading out where I can be left alone’ to it.
Throw in a dash of civil war nostalgia (the south consistent stated that ‘all it wanted was to be left alone’) and mix in some capitalist robber-baron worship and there you are.
Heck, throw in some Heinlein (though I think he’d agree with me more than the LP) and you’ve got a generation (or two or three) of young men who believe that they’d be better off solving the problem themselves than any government ever could (regardless of what the problem in question might be).
The free access of information is always a benefit. As you said it makes it more difficult for mis-behavers to hide their misdeeds (including government)(maybe especially government) and allows people to note positive contributors.
You’d better, or the giant sentient squids will get you! :D**
[nitpick]
I think you mean Laura Ingalls Wilder
[/nitpick]
how is practical libertarianism of benefit to the working class?
If I had to choose a top-level (cabinet) level department to do away with I’d probably go with Education first. I’ve always felt that education is one of the premier ‘local level’ governmental functions. And I have severe doubts about the way the federal government approaches things.
Foreign Policy: While I think (and I speak as a man who once worked for USAID for two years) that there can be some real arguments made for an isolationist foreign policy system it is impractical to expect such to come about. For better or worse the United States is the pre-eminent power right now. It would be easy for someone to say “We have the power…let’s use it” and establish an American Empire. Thankfully there’s not really a history of such in the United States being done openly. (Really, people should thank their lucky stars that the Soviets didn’t win the cold war.)
If I had to choose proper use of warfare I’d say the civil war, world war II, and the Star Wars trilogy.
OK, seriously. I agreed with the existence of NATO as a defensive force. Attack one of us and we all attack you. I strongly disagree with the use of NATO is an agressor mode as seems to be currently contemplated.
I would like to believe that we’re moving towards a more ‘libertarian’ culture but I don’t see a true one happening any time soon. Libertarian beliefs tend to spark from the comfortable middle class. Until we have a large group of secure (financially and socially) people it will be difficult to make the argument. Certainly someone just getting by is going to want increased government controls in place so they can be taken care of.
I’m going to handle these in one post. Look for your name…
I’m not sure I agree from an ideal standpoint but I agree that getting rid of welfare isn’t feasible. Entrepreneurship is a ‘high-risk high-reward’ concept. Those who succeed are often rewarded beyond the dreams of avarice. If that’s the case then why place the so-called safety net in place? The dream is what keeps people going, not the knowledge that there’s no penalty of failure.
I have people working for me right now (this very minute I’m looking at one) who have had the option of no-pay-high-commission or higher-pay-low-commission and they’ve all chosen the ‘no-pay’ route. They’re confident in their abilities.
I’m hardly a free market guru, trust me. But I find the presumption that people will do the wrong thing to be false. I trust that people, when the burden of decision is placed upon them, will do what’s right the majority of the time. I find the regulation of drugs to be paternalistic in the extreme. And even with today’s regulatory environment antibi’s are still over-prescribed, aren’t they?
The easy answer is that they’d weed themselves out pretty damn quick. But that’s not practical, is it? 
Simply put I think people will learn quickly what to do and what not to do when the responsibility rests with them. People are not, by and large, idiots (however fun it is to believe that).
In the situation you describe the event would occur whether or not drugs are available in the marketplace, wouldn’t it?
There will always be some level of insanity and bad choices on the part of members of any society. I don’t believe there would be a significant increase in such incidents with legalization.
This is the longest post I think I’ve ever written. I actually had to back out and do it in Word.
Ugh.
That’s ‘a minimum’?
Lib, we’ve always disagreed about the application of libertarianism, you preferring to treat it as a whole that should come into being from Zeus’s forehead and me preferring a practical approach (thus the name).
You speak of libertarianism as an ‘ethic’. Well, I don’t believe you can impose an ethic on another person even with force. Therefore for the extreme brand of libertarianism to work you’d have to get 100% buy-in from a group of people (humans) who can’t even agree which lite beer tastes better (answer: none).
In addition, you seem to think that what I define as ‘practical libertarianism’ would be some over-arching governmental system. This is a fallacy. I’m taking us from point A (the present form of government) and trying to establish what would WORK using the current form of government and a practical campaign of change.
But: to your questions:
Number One:
While I’d hate to specify an ‘ethic’ (such as it is) I would say the over-riding goal of my own philosophy is what I’ve stated before: Given that people create societies and expect those societies norms to be respected the best form of government we can practically attain is one that maximizes liberty while respecting societal norms and also leaves flexibility for those norms to evolve over time.
Number Two:
Eminent domain is well-established in the law and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. I would prefer an appeals process myself. But I know you’re hung up on this one.
Number Three:
Yes, a practical libertarian government governs with consent. By accident of birth an individual exists under a certain form of government (unless one lives in an anarchy like Somalia). But one has the ability to alter one’s situation through movement or attempting to change the existing government. There’s an implied consent to societal norms through existing and benefiting from the society. A written contract from each individual is not necessary.
Number Four:
This is coming back to the ‘eminent domain’ question, isn’t it? Taxation is certainly the ‘seizing of an individuals wealth’ even though no crime has been committed. And there’s certainly a societal need for taxation to pay for societal wants.
Number Five:
A practical libertarian government (I’d like to think of it as a ‘democracy’) certainly can redistribute the wealth of it’s citizens. If societal norms indicate a desire to emplace a system to prevent starvation then the money for that has to come from taxation.
Heck, even the establishment of the armed forces, or the interstate road system, or the judiciary, or ANY government work is a ‘redistribution of wealth’. In all those cases citizens are being taxed to provide for the whole. Isn’t that a ‘redistribution’?
Number Six:
Yes, a minority has several recourses. First, the constitution as it’s written guarantees certain rights. If the majority decided that rape would henceforth be legal the minority would have the ability to appeal it even before such a law was enacted.
In addition, if the minority finds the current political climate distasteful enough they have the ability to leave. I’d wager (using your example) that if suddenly rape WAS legal we’d see a dearth of women in the streets tomorrow morning and the singles bars of London and Toronto would be brimming with American accents shortly.
In effect any practical approach to government would be ‘majoritarian’ but have agreed upon structures to protect the minority.
Number Seven:
Orphans: Current societal norms indicate a willingness for local government to care for those incapable of caring for themselves (orphans) therefore it’s in place. Personally I would prefer a family connection to the caretaker. Whether that requires assistance from the federal government is in play (in my head). I, myself, would take care of family regardless of reimbursement. But not everyone has a family capable of such things.
Number Eight:
There are differences, though I can see they’d be blurry. Any strict constitutionalist should be driven mad by the way things are run at this point (what with having the constitution stretched as it gets right now). But a practical man sees that things are as they are and attempts to deal with them from there. I don’t see a way to suddenly change the Interstate Commerce Clause at this point so we attempt to develop ways of dealing with it and maintaining the maximum of liberty while working within it.
whew
Well, what’s the over-under on how many replies I make in this thread, anyway?
This is a viewpoint I just cannot agree with. I’m not calling people idiots to be cute or to set myself off as part of the poor intellectual elite fighting against the aggressive ignorance of the masses. I really really mean it. People make choices that are wrong, and not just wrong with hindsight, but obviously wrong when they are made. People fall for Nigeria scams. People send money to the World Currency Cartel. People do these incredibly stupid things, even though responsibility rests on them. Amazingly large numbers of people believe in blatant untruths. I wouldn’t trust most of this planet’s population to boil spaghetti.
No. If the drugs are not available, it doesn’t happen. If the drugs are illegal, then at least a consumer (even a very uninformed one) understands that it’s bad for you, and society can do what it can to keep it off the streets.
Come on. If a drug is illegal and therefore hard to come by, it is by definition less likely that someone will take it and suffer ill effects. If it’s available to every high school kid who wants to know what it feels like being high, there are going to be more incidents. Why wouldn’t there?
Speaking of the high school kids, should drugs be legal for children? Should an 8-year-old be able to walk into a cornershop on the way home from school and purchase cocaine because some older kids said it was cool? If not, where do we draw the line?
Practical libertarianism should provide the means by which the working class can aspire to improve themselves. From a strictly practical standpoint there’s no way in hell welfare and other government assistance would suddenly go away. Therefore I’d say that unemployment and job training would continue. But I would (as I’ve said before) strictly limit the benefit any individual could derive from the government over the course of their life.
As an aside I’ve always been amused by the ‘working class’ concept in America. While there is certainly a group of people who ‘work’ they’re not some monolithic thing all with one set of needs and desires. Except maybe climbing into more comfortable situations. And that applies to every person regardless of the size of their checkbook.
Jonathan
Actually, by number four, I meant asset forfeiture. But thank you for taking the time to clear up some things for me. Here’s a toast to you! […clink…]