Calling All Libertarians!

Great Debates
1

In the interest of being a responsible poster, I have already searched the archives for recent debates on libertarianism. Nonetheless, I still have a few questions that I would like addressed. I apologize if you are offended by well-worn debates.

I understand that the Libertarian Party is the most popular third-party in the United States. A few semesters ago I had a libertarian computer science professor. He seemed like a nice enough guy, although he almost killed one of the students in a freak accident with an overhead projector (another story). Of course his political leanings were irrelevant to the course — I only know about his politics because I happened across a link to his personal home page from our class web site.

I have a somewhat fragmented picture of libertarianism. I do know that libertarians believe government should play a minimal role in both social and fiscal policy. A libertarian government would at most enforce contracts and provide for law-enforcement and national defense. Consequently, libertarians are both free market capitalists (like most conservatives) and civil libertarians (like most liberals).

I’m not going to pick on libertarian social policy because I am a civil libertarian myself, but I do have problems with a libertarian economy. Okay, here come the questions:
[ol]
[li]Has a libertarian society ever existed in history? If so, what was the outcome? Do libertarians see their ideology as an attainable goal rather than a form of utopianism?[/li]
[li]In a libertarian society, what would prevent the wealth from concentrating in the hands of a few elites while the rest of the population becomes dirt poor (see feudalism)?[/li]
[li]Assuming that a minimal libertarian government exists, what would prevent this government from becoming corrupted? I don’t think I’m stepping out on a limb by saying that our current government is playing favorites with those who have the most cash (see campaign finance, lobbies, pork barrel, etc.). What would stop a libertarian government from also favoring large corporations and stifling free market competition?[/li]
[li]Since libertarians do favor some form of government (however small) does this mean that libertarians also support taxation? If so, is taxation voluntary? If not, who pays for the government?[/li]
[li]What is the goal of libertarianism? I have always thought the goal of modern political thought is the maximization of well-being throughout all walks of life. Do libertarians claim to be utilitarian as well? Or do they prefer a more Darwinistic society where the cunning and competitive prosper at the expense of the less able-bodied.[/li]
[li]Supposing that a libertarian society could work, shouldn’t a good libertarian take an all-or-nothing approach to policy? In other words, could partial libertarianism do more harm than good? For example, suppose that the government favoritism eschewed by libertarians has created a large and powerful monopoly. Wouldn’t the removal of government regulation allow this corporation to grow even stronger, thus stifling competition even further? Is libertarianism viable only if you start from scratch?[/li]
[li]And finally, is John Stossel a libertarian?[/li][/ol]

  • JB
2

As it happens we are discussing Libertarianism right now. It is in the “The US is already a socialist society” thread.

Come on over.

3

junebeetle:

Don’t have good, pat answers for your questions. Plus, I have no idea who John Stossel is (been out of the country too long?).

I can point you to some places that might help you, though:

Libertarian Party Official Website

Official Site of Harry Browne Presidential Campaign

Reason Magazine (Free Minds, Free Markets)

If you want more theoretical-type stuff, check with Libertarian, who you can probly find on the Socialism thread 2sense mentioned.

Hope this helps.

-VM

4

junebeetle

Note: the following are solely my opinions.

Not really.

Op. cit.

Assuming you mean “utopianism” in the modern sense, there is hardly anything utopian about hard work and struggle. But if you mean “utopianism” in the classical sense, then of course it is utopian until it manifests into existence.

If you are asking whether libertarianism is practical, then my answer would be that what is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing social engineering or some other tyranny, then libertarian principles are highly impractical. But if you are practicing voluntary relations among free people, then libertarian principles are the only practical ones there are.

Nothing other than people’s common sense.

In a free-market, tempered by noncoercion, you would likely be “dirt poot” if you are stupid, incompetent, lazy, ignorant, foolish, or any number of other causes. But these causes would not include someone taking your property away from you. Contrast this with modern American society, in which its politicians and bureaucrats can take your property away from you by fiat law (see Fabianism).

Nothing besides an enlightened and armed citizenry.

A Favoring them with what? No laws can exist that abridge the rights of any citizen. Contrast this with modern American society, wherein Mr. Tycoon can bribe Senator Fatcat to pass special legislation that will favor his company against competitors.

B Contradictions do not exist. A libertarian government, by definition, does not stifle free market competition. If you are in fact asking what is to stop the libertarian government from losing its libertarianism, the answer is previously cited.

If by taxation you mean seizing the property of peaceful honest people by force or threat of force, the answer is no.

In a libertarian society, by definition, all praxes are voluntary.

Those who consent to be governed.

That is like asking who pays for Wal-Mart, and the answer is those who choose to shop there. As it is, when you go to Wal-Mart, you are greeted at the door by representatives of the company, you make your selections, you pay at the register, and you leave. Contrast this with being taken to Wal-Mart against your will, being greeted at the door by armed thugs who take whatever they want from you, and give you whatever, if anything, they please, and then send you on your way.

A context of peace and honesty.

Libertarianism would be very useful to people who are peaceful and honest, but of little use to people who are coercive and untrustworthy.

Neither have we stopped beating our wives.

Those who prosper in a libertarian context are those who can bring their dreams to fruition peacefully and honestly, be they able-bodied or in wheel-chairs.

Yes.

Yes, just as partial pregnancy might have unpredictable results.

A mixed metaphor.

In a libertarian society, monopolies exist only when everybody willfully and voluntarily favors the monopoly with patronage. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a monopoly except in a market that is not free. In a free-market, on the other hand, a monopoly is the result of a unanimous decision by the populace.

I think so, yes.

“Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka

Yes.

The best on-line resource for those interested in libertarianism is at Free Market.

Thank you for your questions.

5

Now can we hear the overhead projector story?

6

Libertarian:

I like the Wal-Mart analogy. Except for the part about the aremed thugs, it kind of reminds me of my Wal-Mart experiences in northern Germany.

-VM

7

How does a libertarian society deal with threats to the environment? By denying they exist?

8

Environmental issues? Those would be dealt with (to the extent they need to be) with property rights and lawsuits. If someone pollutes your property, you can sue them. If someone makes the air you breathe dangerous to you, you can sue them. While there are fewer built-in protections in this approach, there are also fewer politicians to be bribed by corrupt businesses.

9

Environmental issues? Those would be dealt with (to the extent they need to be) with property rights and lawsuits. If someone pollutes your property, you can sue them. If someone makes the air you breathe dangerous to you, you can sue them. While there are fewer built-in protections in this approach, there are also fewer politicians to be bribed by corrupt businesses.

10

That’s preposterous, waterj2. Not all envronmental damage manifests itself as direct harm to one individual or party at the hands of another clearly identifiable party. What about endangered species? What about long-term deteriorations such as global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain? I take a pretty dim view of legislation-by-lawsuit, but in a libertarian society, how would the courts even operate?

11

sqweels

In my opinion, pollution, which is vandalism, is a criminal offense. Libertarianly speaking, crime is the abridgement of rights.

Gratuitous.

12

So like, we’d need regulations to prevent that, and a bureaucratic system for investigating violations and assigning responsibility as well as identifying new threats and devising new regulations to counter them.

Besides, aren’t we all vandalizing a little bit by driving our cars etc.?

13

Sure.

It wasn’t exactly an overhead projector — it was one of those devices that allows you to project a computer image onto a big screen. Picture an object about the size of a small Igloo cooler, weighing about 50 pounds. At the time of the “incident”, said libertarian professor was demonstrating the Towers of Hanoi problem with a nifty graphics presentation from his laptop. In case you aren’t familiar with the Towers of Hanoi, it’s a staple of first year computer science courses — an ancient puzzle involving pegs and disks which can be solved easily using a recursive algorithm.

Anyway, the professor needed to balance the projector on top of a stand in the front row in order to get a good image on screen. The stand was one of those aluminum wheeled things from the AV department, about five feet tall — the kind used to carry television sets and VCRs between classrooms. Since the cable connecting the laptop to the projector was short, The professor had to pull up a desk right next to the projector in order to give his presentation.

Well, right in the middle of the lecture, he accidently bumped the stand with his arm, knocking this huge 50-pound projector onto one of the students in the front row. Crunch! I was sitting near the back of the classroom so I couldn’t see exactly what happened next. I heard somebody shout “Oh my God! Look at all the blood!”. Luckily, a good Samaritan donated his T-shirt to help stop the bleeding. The classroom was strangely silent for about 15 minutes until the paramedics arrived and took the projector victim to the hospital. The weirdest thing was how the professor continued the lecture after paramedics left as if nothing had happened! He didn’t even look phased. Of course, we had to use our imaginations about the Towers of Hanoi, since the projector was permanently out of service.

It turns out that the student was pretty lucky. The projector had fallen on his leg and glanced off without breaking it — but it left a gash that bled profusely and required eleven stitches. He come to class the very next day, wearing a huge bandage over his leg. As far as I know, there were no lawsuits — so maybe the professor was the lucky one.

  • JB
14

sqweels

Nonsense.

Oh, yes indeed.

The modern American society is like that. It’s okay to vandalize a little bit, to usurp a few rights, to oppress the minority for the sake of the majority. I refer you to F. A. Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order, developed in The Road to Serfdom, and other books, for a look at how society might have developed differently in a noncoercive context.

Libertarianly speaking, nothing, not even expedience, gives you license to abridge the rights of others. In a Fabianist economy, the foul stench from pollutants is tolerated for the sake of the tax base. In a noncoercive free-market, if people object to the pollution of their land, then entrepreneurs have incentive to produce pollutionless transporation.

15

What about defense? What keeps a big bunch of armed thugs (such as, say, a foreign country that did not practice Libertarianism[TM]) from marching onto your real estate and taking over? Assuming no one individual is capable of holding off a whole gang, the people in your neighborhood (and maybe other neighborhoods) would have to agree to band together in case a bunch of thugs attacked one of them. How is this stand-by defensive force coordinated? Who pays for the heavy armaments (tanks, fighter planes, nuclear ordnance) that no one of them, individually, is willing or able to buy?

16

Stossel is a reporter for ABC’s 20/20. His “Give Me a Break” segment purports to expose wastefulness
and hypocrisy in America, although he is often criticized for playing fast and loose with the facts (FAIR has a web site devoted to him).

  • JB
17

Hey, Lib . . . back to fielding the Libertarianism questions again, I see. :smiley:

One clarification, if you would: You said

That’s if enough people object, right? If only a small percentage of the population has asthma, for example, there will be little incentive for low-emissions vehicles, right?

I’m missing something. In what way is this not a tyranny of the majority?

18

It is my understanding that in order for a libertarian nation to succeed, all other nations must be libertarian as well. Hence the question: Do libertarians actually believe that libertarianism is an achievable goal rather than wishful thinking? A genuine libertarian society seems nearly impossible to implement. In which case, what is the point of advocating libertarian policy if the end results can never be attained?

  • JB
19

tracer, can I assume that you would be willing to contribute some portion of your income/resources for military and police protection? After all, it would take an abominably stupid person to leave his property and possesssions unprotected.

Given that, can we also assume your neighbors aren’t abominably stupid? They want their stuff protected too, right? Plus, if you get “invaded,” they’re more likely to be “invaded.”

Now, we have you and all of your neighbors willing to contribute some part of your resources/income to your protection. In which case I’m sure there would be entrepreneurs capable of building, equipping and maintaining security forces for protection from threats within and without who would be happy to take that money. You could choose to take utilize that service, or not.

20

Yes, me and a few of my neighbors could pool our resources to buy the heavy equipment necessary to protect ourselves from small gangs of outside invaders. We could also take turns standing watch to spot approaching invaders before they arrive. But the thing about successful gangs of thugs is, they tend to attract new members. A small gang can grow to be a big gang rather quickly, when others who are not members of the gang perceive a potential economic or safety advantage to being in the gang.

To defend yourself against a big gang, you need a big band of defenders. And a lot of hardware. You and your neighborhood friends alone will not be enough to thwart them. You have to join forces with other neighborhoods for large-scale mutual protection. But with such a large group, you can bet your last privately-minted silver dollar that not everybody is going to know everybody else, and that not everybody knows who has contracted with whom to provide which defensive goods and services when. And when this happens, some people are going to want to cheat. Why should you waste one evening a month scouting for enemy thugs if you can pretend it’s not your turn? Why should you contribute to the common kitty for buying an F-22 fighter if no one knows whether you’ve contributed or not? And if you choose not to participate in this defense program, you’ll STILL get a good deal of protection out of it if your house is nestled safely inside your multi-neighborhood defense network. (If the enemy’s charging in, they’re not going to go threading through the streets looking for houses that aren’t participating in mutual-defense pacts, and the multi-neighborhood defense network won’t assume they’re going to.)

You would need general participation. You would need something like tax collection and mandatory military service. In short, you would need something like … a government!