But that’s impossible – any decision I make is going to affect those around me. If I decide to raise pigs, my decision will definitely have an impact on those around me.
Only in an idealistic society. Unless you have a far different understanding of “rights” than I do. Perhaps you’d care to explain what you mean by the term.
I see.
That’s correct, and I apologize for my attempt to be flippant. My point was that I interpreted your statements to indicate that an individual’s rights were paramount, taking precedence over the rights of others. But it seems that there are only two choices – either the “tyranny of the majority” or the “tyranny of the individual”. The purpose of government – any government – is to negotiate conflicting rights.
Thus my right to be pollution-free overrides someone else’s right to travel when and where he or she might want (one of the fundamental problems with public transportation). How does one decide which right (or set of rights) takes precedence?
As I see it, the price of living in an ordered society is surrendering the unfettered exercise of individual rights. We compromise for the greater good.
Very true, but governments do prevent certain kinds of Bad Stuff from happening, or from happening beyond a certain extent. Epidemics and crime, for example, are affected by governments’ policies on vaccination and law enforcement. As I said, choosing or modifying a political system is just a matter of negotiating how much and what kinds of Bad Stuff you’ll put up with.
I definitely agree that governments often try to solve the wrong problems, solve problems very badly or not at all, and/or make other problems worse in the process. But I don’t see any foundation for asserting that the vast majority of problems will therefore be solved better and faster if there’s no government involvement with them. (Maybe I’ll find some when I read the sources in the link you provided, but so far it still sounds to me like mere wishful thinking.)
Here’s where my earlier question about model communities comes in. If Lib’ians believe that people can solve most social problems better without government interference, I would think that the best way for them to convince other people of that would be to tackle some social problems (in a small and local way) and solve them on their own. Then they could point to those achievements and say, “See how unnecessary government interference is?” Other communities would imitate them, and society would gradually become Libertarian from the bottom up instead of from the top down. When Lib’ians persist in saying “society would work much better on Libertarian principles but there’s no way to demonstrate that without first dismantling most governmental functions and removing all taxation,” it smells a bit fishy to me. Sounds nice, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it—and you’re asking me to bet the whole country.
-Problem: People are concerned about how fattening pre-prepared food is.
Libertarian solution: Recognizing these concerns, companies like Slimfast start offering low-fat versions of pre-prepared meals of all different kinds.
-Problem: People are concerned about animals being abandoned to starve.
Libertarian solution: These people contribute to organizations like the Humane Society which establishes shelters for abandoned animals and tries to find homes for them.
-Problem: People are concerned about the working conditions of employees of Nike in other countries.
Libertarian solution: People begin spreading the word to their friends and many vow to not purchase Nike products. Nike, not wanting to lose business, begins to make improvements.
-Problem: People want faster and better computers.
Libertarian solution: Companies like Intel and IBM devote massive amounts of research money into developing faster, better computer equipment.
-Problem: People are distressed that Microsoft is taking over the computer industry.
Libertarian solution: Linus Torvalds creates an alternate operating system and offers it for free. Be Systems creates a graphics-oriented OS called BeOS and offers it for sale.
Problem: People don’t want to look too old as they age.
Libertarian solution: Plastic surgeons work to come up with newer and better techniques for concealing and repairing the effects of age.
Problem: Many men have trouble achieving erection as they age.
Libertarian solution: Drug companies invest money in “cures” for erectile dysfunction, coming up with increasingly better choices; most recently, Viagra.
-Problem: Disaster victims are left without homes and livelihoods and need some help to re-build.
Libertarian solution: People contribute to charities, like the Red Cross, which move in to offer aid when disasters occur.
-Problem: People are concerned about the harm to the evironment done by the styrofoam containers used to package McDonald’s sandwiches.
Libertarian solution: People share their concerns with friends. Eventually, a large group of people make clear to McDonald’s that they will no longer do business with them while they insist on harming the environment. McDonald’s, after having sworn that they will not change their packaging because of quality concerns, devises new packaging that does not contain styrofoam.
See how unnecessary government interference is?
Our society started out very libertarian. It is steadily becoming less libertarian from the top down. Two problems:
Politicians and liberal media daily work to convince people that government intervention is the only way to solve “big” problems.
Key to people being able to solve their own problems is free use of all their property. When you consider all federal, state, and local taxes, most Americans are losing control of about half of their incomes. Doesn’t leave too much for free use.
We don’t say that. Look around you. Notice that, for most industries, the less government involvement, the better the businesses are run and the more able they are to please their customers.
When liberals say, “Let us take your money and use our greater knowledge to ensure that all your problems are solved,” it sounds a bit fishy to me. Sounds nice, but I wouldn’t bet half my money on it, particularly not based on past performance.
Kimstu and earendel1:
I notice you guys have stopped responding to my posts. I am trying to be helpful. However, if I am wasting your time, let me know–I have my hands pretty full in some other threads.
first let me say I know absolutely nothing about Libertarianism, so please pardon any ignorance. I have been reading the posts with interest and find many good intentions behind the Libertarian perspective.
However one thing that strikes me is that this perspective SEEMS to depend heavily upon the general good will of all citizens. It seems similar to humanism in that it assumes that all individuals are “born good” and if left to their own devices, would contribute our fair share. I would suspect however that many individuals would prey upon such a society, a large percentage would fail to contribute a fair share, and only a fraction would actually take the opportunity to heart.
Again, pardon if I have misinterpreted or misunderstood any of the posts. <ducking the incoming bitch-slaps)
Hmmm, sounds paradoxical. Under libertarianism, if you don’t produce, you don’t eat, unless someone else takes it upon themselves to feed you. So, you think people will be too selfish to support themselves, but others will be too generous to let them starve? Interesting theory.
Libertarianism depends on the fact that people will make sacrifices in support of their needs, beliefs, and interests. If I want a DVD player badly enough, I will work to make money to pay for it.
Where do you see an opportunity to abuse the system by not contributing?
Kimstu, you mentioned crime, and that is in fact the one problem that government is supposed to solve. Much of the disagreement going on in all these threads are over the questions of 1.) what exactly do we mean by “crime”, and 2.) how whould we “solve” it? All this discussion requires using other terms, such as “rights”, and then those terms get discussed. Educational, isn’t it? (And not even tax funded.) I can’t really comment too much on the economics part of the debate, or provide solutions for education and public health, but again, keep in mind that there isn’t a libertarian “bible” with the solutions to these or any problems. Libertarians are just those who think these problems can be best solved by people in a context of freedom.
I see your point about what kind of Bad Stuff you’ll put up with, but let me ask this: who do you think should decide what kind of Bad Stuff you should have to put up with - you, or your government? Who do you think decides that now?
avalongod, your point about “general good will of all citizens” is phrased well (much better than the typical “everybody would have to be libertarian for this to work!”). I would think all libertarians would agree on this one point, that any society worth living in depends on the good will of the citizens. Personally, I am on the “born good” side; I’m there are lib’s on the “born bad” side, too, which seems contradictory to me.
Sorry Smart, didn’t mean to be rude—your posts are indeed informative, it’s just there’s been a lot of traffic here. I can manage a response to a few points:
[quote
More importantly:
Let’s say that you believe that dogs have a “right” to a certain life. Let’s say that I think that dogs are property to be disposed of as I choose. These are both moral stances. What makes yours more valid than mine? What makes you entitled to impose your moral stance upon me?
Or, how about the whole drug war thing? I believe that a person has a right to control what goes into their bodies, whether it is good for them or bad for them. I think that attempting to prevent people from doing what they choose with their bodies (without violating the rights of others) is immoral. What is fair about having government take my money and spend it on “solutions” that I am morally opposed to?
[/quote]
Not a thing, in both cases, if we’re talking about some kind of absolute morality; there’s no context-free way to evaluate whether or how mine is better than yours. I really don’t believe much in moral absolutism or natural law or those kinds of notions; as far as I can tell, morality doesn’t really exist outside of a social consensus. I don’t think it violates the rights of the individual (as I see individual rights, that is) for society to establish a moral code that conflicts with individuals’ moral codes in some places. I can try to change society’s moral code to make it better conform to mine, and I think society should be careful how it defines its moral code, but I’m not fundamentally outraged by the mere fact that a moral code not identical to mine has social sanction and that the law makes me submit to it.
I notice that Lib’ians cannot totally avoid such conflicts either, if the discussions of abortion policy that I encountered at free-market.net are any indication: some Lib’ians believe that the Lib’ian definition of a rights-bearing unit applies to fetuses and others do not, and each group would wish a Lib’ian society to impose its own definition on all citizens. To me, that’s just an unavoidable part of what societies do.
It’s an interesting list. The first thing I noticed about it was that most of these “social problems” are comparatively minor dissatisfactions of the well-to-do. (Not that I mean to trivialize the trauma of erectile dysfunction, gentlemen! but it is fairly benign as health problems go, and anyway the current “solution” still doesn’t cover most of the poor people who suffer from it.)
Putting the societal evils of high-calorie TV dinners, underperforming computers, Microsoft’s market share, and facial wrinkles also on the back burner for the time being, we’re left with the more serious problems of abused pets, Nike sweatshops, devastation from natural disasters, and environmental degradation from styrofoam. Let’s take a look at what’s actually involved in the “Libertarian solutions” to them.
Abused pets. Private organizations do indeed do wonderful work in animal rescue. I note, however, that as social problems go, saving pets is certainly one of our cutest and cuddliest, and naturally provokes a high degree of concern among citizens. Even with that advantage, however, such organizations frequently seek help from governments, as in this story about a referendum to build an animal shelter.
Nike sweatshops. Again, individuals did admirable work in bringing pressure to bear via the Fair Labor Association and the Workers’ Rights Coalition. However, Nike’s response has been quite sluggish, as this recent story notes:
Moreover, the same story (and others you’ll find by searching on “Nike sweatshops”) describes some of the ways Nike is using its economic clout to retaliate against some groups and institutions that have been exerting this pressure. So this isn’t quite a success story yet.
Natural disasters. Indeed, let’s hear it for the Red Cross and similar organizations; but the federal government, of course, plays a much larger role in disaster relief.
Styrofoam packaging. Three cheers also for the consumer groups that convinced McDonalds to change to more eco-friendly packaging: but you’ll notice on this page at the site of one of those very groups that the public became concerned about this issue only after publication of research by those very un-Libertarian organizations, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Bureau of Standards, indicating that styrofoam appeared to pose non-negligible dangers to health and the environment. Without this government-sponsored research, McDonalds might still be distributing styrofoam boxes at every drive-thru.
“Libertarian solutions?” Not so much. Putting it all together, Smartass, I have to respond that nope, I don’t yet see how unnecessary government interference is in solving social problems. I haven’t looked into the history of the “problems” you described that I characterized as comparatively trivial, but even if the government contributed nothing to solving any of them, it would just indicate that “Libertarian principles” result in better consumer products for consumers who can afford them. Wow, commercial markets respond to consumer demands! Wait, I think I already knew that. Still doesn’t inspire me to set about dismantling the government.
And I would say there is no reason to. I would say that, as long as you can do it without initiating force or fraud against me, you should be free to live your life and dispose of your property in support of your moral code. And I should have the same freedom. And everyone else.
And what is consensus? The majority makes decisions for the minority. Kept slavery going for a long time.
The question of abortion is an interesting one. Libertarians tend to agree about what rights an individual should have. The problem with abortion is that there is no agreed upon way of determining when a person is vested with those rights.
This is necessarily so. The government has taken it upon itself to solve the “big” problems. There’s no need to pick apart the list, as I just threw out what came to mind because you asked for example of the success of “libertarian policies”. The simple fact is that anything that you buy that solves your problem, from deodorant to insect spray to bubblegum is an example of how libertarian policies solve problems. The point is that markets work to provide what people want most. It works for poor people too. You think that no goods are marketed to the poor?
If enough people want a “problem” solved and are willing to give up something of value for the “solution”, markets will endeavor to provide at least one, and usually many, solutions. This is true regardless of the type of problem. And because markets don’t require “consensus” and the participants must compete to remain in the market, the solutions tend to be more varied and to increase in efficiency over time.
Governments, on the other hand, are not governed by market forces. They tend to provide solutions that are arbitrary and inefficient, and in general do not solve the original problems. Often, they make the problems worse. Also, the bigger the problem, and the more government tries to solve it, the more freedom the people lose. The drug war is an excellent example of this.
And what decides whether they can afford them? How badly they want them. I can afford a boat. However, I want electricity in my house more, so I forego the boat and buy electricity.
Obviously, the amount of money you have affects what things you can afford. Some people will always have more options in this regard than others. Government cannot change this.
Haven’t suggested dismantling the government. Think about this: Who responds more quickly to demands, governments or markets? Who provides the greatest variety of potential solutions, governments or markets? Who uses resources more efficiently to provide services, governments or markets?
The point is not that governments are totally incapable of solving any problems, or that free markets will solve every problem. But, given the same set of problems and individual desire to solve them, markets will do much better.
Why would the government be better at solving problems of pollution, poverty, animal cruelty, education, etc. than markets? Do you think governments are better at it? If so, wouldn’t it make sense to have the government be in charge of everything?
Cripes, do I really sound that dumb? Maybe I should start using more esoteric words, like “praxis”.
I have little doubt that private schools can be more efficient than public schools (my own excellent public school education notwithstanding). I also have a feeling that the best private schools could probably beat the crap out of the best public schools.
It’s a tradeoff, just like everything else. If all schools are private, you get exactly the education you pay for. That’s great for Mr. Millionaire, who can afford to send his kids to the very best school in Libertaria. Mr. Millionaire’s kids would get a kick-ass education — a lot better than any education they’d get in public schools. Of course, the rest of us would have to send our kids to Buck’s Discount Skools, Inc.
I realize that freedom from restrictions is highly valued by Libertarians. But what about the big picture? A private school system may sound attractive because of the higher level of choice and competition it offers on an individual basis, but what are the end results? An undereducated population in which only the rich and powerful have access to good schooling? High rates of poverty, diseases and crime? An even lower standard of education than the current public school system we love to gripe about? I’d certainly be willing to pay taxes and sacrifice some choice and efficiency for the benefits of a universally educated populace. Just because the public school system has problems, it doesn’t mean that a private school system wouldn’t suffer from even more problems of a different nature.
Libertarian:
Holy cow. Your idea of tyranny is my idea of civil responsibility. There are more important freedoms than keeping 100% of my income to myself. You say that the current tax system is unfair. I agree. You say that too much money is wasted on top-heavy bureaucracies. I agree. But tyranny? Considering the brutal history of the human race, I don’t think either of us knows real tyranny.
Forgive me for generalizing, but Libertarianism sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify an economy of instant gratification. Individualism is great and all, but we do live in a society. You just can’t have it all! Ultimate freedom comes with a price, no matter how many examples of free market innovation you invoke to convince me that the problems will naturally solve themselves. I have serious doubts as to whether these free market solutions are strong enough to create a healthy, stable society.
Anyway, all of this speculation is meaningless until a libertarian society can be tested in the real world. I’d like to see how it turns out (although I wouldn’t want to live there). Any thoughts about buying a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific and running an experimental libertarian society?
Pardon if I seemed paradoxical…it was not an intention to challenge your beliefs, but rather to understand them. You reply helped elucidate things a bit.
Let me go a bit further now (and again I may post challenge-type questions simply to learn, not to say I am disagreeing or feel that you are wrong). My next concern would be…going by what you say, that individuals would produce and be beneficial to society in order to meet their own needs. However it seems to me that societies often require people to give more than simply what is required to meet their own needs. For instance an individual might work to get their DVD player, but would not willingly contribute to the building of roads, care for the elderly, etc…if he/she thinks others will take on that burdon. What would stop me (and others) from failing to contribute to the public welfare…things like police, fire, public maintenance, sewers, etc…rather than put the burdon on my more generous natures (I am not saying I would really do this of course, just speaking hypothetically, although I suspect many would.)
Again, these questions likely reflect my ignorance of libertarianism, and for that I appologize. But at the moment it still seems libertarianism depends upon an informal infrastructure of goodwill…which actually makes me wonder also how “public welfare” can be maintained without at least some of the bureaucracy that government supplies?
Why would Mr. Millionaire’s kids need a good education?
Let me ask you some questions: Does anyone, besides yourself, benefit from your education? Like, say, maybe your employer, your local community? Are there any other people, like yourself, who think that it is important for as many people as possible to be educated?
Libertarians, or at least most of them, do not advocate a policy of “every man for himself”. My first eight years of school were at a private, Catholic school. My parents had to pay tuition for me to attend there. The tuition was higher than what it should have been. The reason: The school charged higher rates to paying students so it could afford to allow in Catholics who could not afford to attend.
Also, why do you assume that cheaper schools would provide low-quality education? So far, the government is spending more on education every year, and SAT scores are going down.
Let’s say that you and the other people in your town decide that you want every child to be educated and, as it happens to be a democracy, you vote to collect a local sales tax in order to fund a local school. Do you think a libertarian federal or state government would stop you?
Let’s say you live in farming community, and the people vote that children should not have to attend school past, say, 8th grade, since the course after that aren’t very practical for your lives. Do you think a libertarian government would force you to provide more?
Do you prefer clothes that are your size, or do you prefer one size fits all?
Would you like creationism to be taught to your children in school? Evolution? Would you like the curriculum to include any kind of religious instruction? Would you like to have a choice?
Do you think that, at your current age, you should be focusing your money on educating your kids? Paying off debts? Health insurance? Helping out others in need? Do you think that your money would be better spent if you could decide where it went?
How much do you think an education costs? How many people do you think could not afford an education for their children if they had all their money? Does it benefit the rich and powerful to allow everyone else to be uneducated?
Here are some things you are currently spending money on:
-Fighting a drug war that is unwinnable.
-Purchasing agricultural products and destroying them so that prices will be artificially high (for everyone).
-Sending armed invasion forces into other countries in order to force them to act in a manner that the U.S. approves of.
-Catching and preventing people from entering the country and looking for work.
-Spying on allies and enemies.
-Expanding teacher payrolls to achieve arbitrary class-size targets.
-Imprisoning and feeding thousands of people who have not hurt anyone but themselves.
-Supplying able-bodied adults with more food and money than they could gain by working, and punishing them if they do.
-Providing comprehensive medical insurance to retired millionaires.
Chances are, you probably approve of some of these expenditures and don’t approve of others. Do you not think that your money would be better spent if it just went to things that you believe are necessary?
Is that what you’re getting? Would you be willing to pay less and have more choice and efficiency and a better-educated populace?
I think you know that I have given more justifications that “because public shools have problems”. Just because the market provides better solutions to such problems as computer design, medical research, food production and distribution, and technological advances doesn’t mean that it couldn’t also provide better education…I guess. You support inefficient systems because you are afraid that, without government interference, the market would not provide you with things that you want and are willing to pay for. I don’t get it.
As to the second part of your post: In Lib’s defense, when some portion of the population dictates to another portion how they should live or spend their money, it is tyranny. What you are disputing is just a matter of degree. Originally, this country was founded on the notion of preventing all tyranny.
I guess you’re not real big on the Constitution either, though.
Are we talking about the U.S. or some Libertaria? If we are talking about Libertaria, best ask Libertarian. However, I imagine that he would say that if you don’t pay for roads, then you don’t get to use them, as they are private property, like everything else.
In the U.S., under our current Constitution, there is nothing to prevent government funding of roads, but it would fall to state government. As for care for the elderly, most people could provide for their own retirement if they had all their money. Those that couldn’t would rely on family or charity–just not coerced charity.
Well, would you like for the fire department to come if your house caught on fire? To be honest, you could have locally financed fire departments and still be in a libertarian country. Or, you could have fire departments that charge per visit, much like many ambulance services. Police are maintained by local governments to protect the rights of citizens. Of course, no police force can provide the kind of protection that citizens can provide for themselves, which is why the 2nd Amendment is so important.
As does taxpayer-funded welfare. If most people don’t mind allowing fellow citizens to starve, then they will, regardless of the government. If most people do not believe in allowing others to starve, then they won’t let them. Our system just happens to have fooled a lot of people into thinking that it can provide better solutions than they can find for themselves.
Most businesses require some amount of bureaucracy. However, government provides a lot more of it, at greater cost, than is necessary.
Then don’t. That doesn’t give you the right to come over to me with a gun and demand my share as well.
On the issues of roads and other things our government currently provides, I have a few more ways things could still work in a libertarian context.
People want roads to where they live. The principles of supply and demand would indicate that someone could do good business in providing these roads at the cheapest rates. Large companies could be formed that run a system of toll roads for profit. These companies could also use their equipment to build roads for neighborhood groups that want to pay. They would probably find it profitable to build roads to ddensely populated areas for free to increase the use (and therefore profit) on the toll roads.
Education, as Smartass mentioned, does not have to be the same cost for everyone, and in private schools often isn’t. Also, education is not something that costs more as the quality increases. The primary need is committed techers, and the evidence is pretty abundant that teachers aren’t in it for the money.
Home insurance companies could always provide a fire protection service for their clients. They would have an incentive to protect something they have made an investment in.
I’d love to see if publice transportation could be run privately. I’ve long had a dream of building my own competing subway system in Boston, due to various complaints with the current one, but I have no idea how it would be posible to build one without government power.
As for parks and forests, these can often be privately operated. People seem to have the impression that if we offered the Grand Canyon for sale that someone will buy it and put a huge factory in the middle or something. The Grand Canyon is far better suited (from a profitability standpoint) to be a tourist attraction than to be a garbage dump. I’ve heard that paper companies use some of their forests for recreation purposes when they’re not being used for logging.
If you look, you will often see that the things that the government does that are good could be done for profit by a private entity that can do it for a low cost due to overlap with one of its other purposes. If you and your neighbors wanted fire protection, you could purchase it on your own. Since your insurance company stands to benefit from your fire protection, it would be wiser to get it to share the cost as well. The same logic can be used with other services the government provides.
Let’s look at the sewers as an example. Currently we have a system of sewage mains and treatment plants run by the local government. How could there be several competing sewage mains under every street, as a libertarian system would expect. Would such a system guarentee that every home was connected at all? Even if it wasn’t profitable? Shit piling up is Bad Stuff indeed, regardless of how pure of heart you are. One household with abysmal sanitation can spread disease all over town. Suppose a family of hillbillies moved to town who were used to collecting their waste in buckets and dumping it in a nearby stream. Should they have that choice? They may not understand the health concerns, but they’re still important. The stream may run through their property, but it affects others downstream. How does libertarianism deal with pollution of rivers and streams?
I can’t imagine anything more efficient than the current system of one set of sewage mains leading to one treatment plant that we all pay a little to keep running. Government is solving a problem while not creating any new ones. Frankly, I don’t know if my share comes out of my property taxes, income taxes, water bill, or garbage bill. All I know is it isn’t much, and the shit goes away when I flush. That’s one less thing to worry about. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Should everyone have to pay a toll whenever they back out of their driveway and turn from one road onto another? If streets are to be paid for by groups of neighbors, how will they enforce payment on one another? Is every imaginable government service going to be converted to something I’ll have to go out of my way to deal with? What a pain in the ass!
What if my next-door neighbor chooses not to pay for fire protection and his house cathces fire? Doesn’t that threaten my house? If he’s not home, I won’t know if he has protection or with which private fire department, so who do I call if not the fire department? Multiple competing firefighting companies will each have smaller budgets (or charge a lot more) and thus be less well equipped than a real fire department, yet there will be considerable duplication in equipment and personnel. Very inefficient.
I don’t know what’s worse about a lot of these libertarian scenarios, that they’re totally unrealistic or that they’re downright scary. If a city auctions off its parkland, who do you think will be the highest bidder, a development company or a group of neighbors scraping together donations? Some privately owned parkland might be profitable to operate (and more expensive to visit), but more will be comercially developed or simply posted for no tresspassing.
The answer to my original question as to whether libertarian society would protect the environment appears to be a resounding “NO” (despite some serious contradictions). Not only can you do whatever you want on private land, but all land will be private. Long-term, imperceptible harm, to the atmosphere, to groundwater, to wildlife, is ignored.
The idea that every problem will be solved by people getting together in sufficient numbers with sufficient economic power is hopelessly naive. Given a choice, people will spend their money on their short-term self intersts, ans that’s a fact. The suggestion seem to be that no problem can be no more serious than the extent to which “people want” to spend money addressing it. If few people want to switch to electric cars, then auto emissions must be no big deal. To heck with what the “experts” say. They couldn’t possibly know whatI want, and what I want is the only thing that’s important. Me, me, me.
p.s. Kimstu: How did you manage to download a bootleg copy of my brain?
It is not the libertarian position that people should have to pay tolls every time they turn onto a different road.
It is not the libertarian position that fire departments become illegal.
It is not the libertarian position that government be abolished.
There is no rule anywhere that things that work better when shared must be owned and administered by the government.
You guys are asking how things would work in a libertarian society. We can tell you generally how they would work. We cannot tell you how fire departments, sewers, and roads would work. That’s the whole point. In a free market system, they may work one way in one community and another an hour down the road. Rather than assuming there is one best answer to every question, libertarians assume there are a lot of possible answers and that, given time, the ingenuity of people will produce better and more efficient solutions.
Strict libertarian philosophy would call for things to be as Libertarian describes them. However, to transform society into that, at least at this point, is not even imaginable. I don’t personally know any libertarians who are recommending overthrowing the government. However, most libertarians feel very strongly about reducing the government back to the limits placed on it by the Constitution.
As it is, we answer questions about libertarian philosophy and you want to talk policy. Within a few exchanges, everyone is positing end-of-the-world scenarios. And you still don’t get what it is that libertarianism is about: Freedom is better than government stewardship. No one is more qualified to make decisions for any individual than that individual himself. Freedom is not practical unless it applies equally to everyone. The purpose of government is to defend freedom.
Libertarians are not against group efforts or sharing. They are against coercive socialist programs that deprive one person’s rights for the benefit of another.
Look, it’s perfectly simple: Civilization requires there to be economic infrastructure, which must be paid for. The only way to do that is to force every member of society to chip in their fair share in taxes. Even the smallest communities need to have a government with the power to coerce payments to the tax base. One community might want to have its sewer system owned by the government and built and run by government employees, while another contracts the whole thing out to private companies, but the money still has to come from tyrannically coerced payments from each one of us (not just “you”).
Tax rates tend to be based on ability to pay. Is this fair? I suppose that depends on which factors you allow into the equation (although sometimes it seems one of the freedoms libertarians are demanding is freedom from fairness). At any rate, it’s not just a case of money being taken from one person and given to another. We all benefit from the things we help government to pay for. You can drive youself crazy trying to calculate whether you benefit less or more than you pay for because it’s a system of infinite complexity. A rich man may have to pay a lot more in taxes, but his customers, employees, and suppliers all benefit from roads and schools, and he benefits it turn. Even if you insist it doesn’t add up, I can still say “look, you’re rich! Quit complaining!” A well-off American is one on the luckiest people who ever lived. Some countries have very harsh policies toward the rich, others have vast amounts of desititute poor people. The great thing about the U.S. is that we go for the “happy medium”.
Certainly, government can’t and shouldn’t arrange things so that everyone has exactly the same stuff and the same options over the whole course of their lives. But government can try to arrange things so as to establish a certain minimal set of options. Your decision to forego buying a boat because you’d rather have electricity in your home seems like a reasonable trade-off between different desiderata. But if you were poor, you might be having to choose, say, between food and basic education, or (if we assume that your alternative to homelessness is a job handling dangerous carcinogens) between shelter and health. Most non-Libertarians don’t feel that those are acceptable trade-offs. You may fume about the interfering socialists who would wantonly trample on other people’s rights just so that you could have both education and food, but I don’t think you’re going to change a lot of minds that way.
I think markets are indeed terrific at solving certain kinds of problems. Specifically, at the risk of stating the obvious, markets are very good at doing things that make money. That’s why the Libertarian solutions you mentioned to various consumer desires, for things like low-fat prepared foods and cosmetic treatments for aging skin, work so well: markets tend to be very efficient at satisfying the material demands of consumers who are affluent enough to have lots of choices.
At the risk of stating the obvious again, markets tend to be less effective at doing things that don’t make money. Consider the problem of devastation from natural disasters: we don’t see market competitors pushing and shoving each other in their eagerness to compete in providing food and shelter for flood victims, for example. It’s simply not a paying proposition. Even Libertarians concede that such problems will be dealt with not by markets but by individual and collective acts of charity. But why should we assume that private charity will necessarily be more effective, reliable, and comprehensive than government approaches? It sure doesn’t seem obvious to me as I glance over my United Charities Board report.
It’s also important to remember that market efficiencies always operate in a limited context. The law of supply and demand sets prices very efficiently between buyer and seller, but it ignores externalities (costs or benefits in the production or use of the product which aren’t assumed by either buyer or seller) which can make goods seriously underpriced or overpriced. People who rhapsodize about how effective markets are usually are only thinking about their operation within such limited contexts.
It seems to me that asking “Which is better, markets or government?” is much like asking “Which is better, sex or food?” They’re both crucial parts of human societies but they don’t do the same things. To assert that one is unequivocally “better at” everything is just—well, sorry, there’s that overused word “silly” again.
Kimstu
P.S. to sqweels: Bootleg? But they told me it was all in the public domain!
Well, actually there IS a “libertarian” society, wher the only taxes are those you “agree” too, and the same with laws. It is called “Beirut”, where everything is run by armed thugs and “militias”. Even “military service” is “private”. “taxes” and road repairs are private, as are utilities, education, and everything else.
Lets us just start with something like animal cruelty. In a
L. society, there are no laws on what you can do with your animals, but there are “animal rescue” private groups. Sounds like what we had over a hundred years ago, when the ASPCA was first founded. You could torture & beat your animals all you wanted, but the ASPCA and others would offer to take it off your hands & rescue it. But some humans do NOT act in 'enlightened self interest", they WANT to be cruel, even if it costs them money.
And schools: some parents WANT their kids uneducated. Yes, I know it is terrible, but they do. Especially in rural areas, and before child labor laws, parents would rather earn a few $$ off their kids, rather than educate them Yes, educated kids DO earn more, but maybe they won’t turn it all over to daddy. Some parents sell their kids into prostitution, too.
You see, SOME people, far too many people, are just plain ignorant mean, and will NOT act in “enlightened self interest”. L…ism ignores this, and presumes a perfect world, with good, smart, but greedy people. I am out there, folks–it just ain’t so. Libertarianism has never worked, and won’t work. This is all just hot air, like talking about the “perfect” communist society.
I’ve looked three times, and am still not sure if I spelled your name right.
Okay, if you could ever reach total theoretical libertarianism, government payments would be voluntary, too. Needless to say, I’m not recommending that. I don’t want the government abolished. I don’t expect government to be free. However, there are very few things that government does even passingly well. And I believe it should stay out of things that it tends to only make worse. Also, government solutions always involve somebody’s rights getting violated; whereas market solutions tend to be more efficient, offer more choices, and are not allowed to violate people’s rights. Doesn’t it make sense, then, that you want government functions to be minimal?
Well, let’s think about this: Some communities implement their functions in one way, othes in another. As time passes, people start to notice that the sewer system in Privatown is much cheaper than the one in Sociatown, and they decide to make theirs more like Privatown’s. Thus, we have various solutions being tried, with more freedom on the community (as opposed to national) level to make decisions. Hey, this sounds a lot more libertarian than a a central-government solution. I like the way you’re thinking.
That’s true. Often, money is taken from one person. About half of it is wasted, then the rest is given to another, with provisions.
Once again, sewer systems are good things. Fire departments, in many cases, are good things. On the other hand, buying up cheese and burying it in the ground is ridiculous. Would you like it if the federal government took over the administration and staffing all fire departments in the country?
You want to spread the decisions out as much as possible: It allows for flexibility and for more personal choice. Thus, fire departments should not be provided by federal government, and in fact, neither should much else outside of national defense and maintaining the courts.
Is this logic so offensive? The individual should decide about his clothes. The family should decide about the house. The community should decide about the schools, the state should decide about any necessary “social” programs, the federal government should protect us from the bad guys.
The fact that some functions must be handled by government does not naturally lead to the government having its hands in everything, right?
And how much of his tax money do you think is actually going towards things that have benefits for him? Or, for anybody else, for that matter? kimstu:
Yep, it can try. And if it fails miserably, do we try to go another route, say, something that doesn’t require government? Hell no. We giver more money to the government. Eventually, it’ll solve all our problems if we just give it enough money.
Once again: I’m not saying that these aren’t valid goals. I’m saying that government won’t achieve them. If you want to keep sending more and more money into the Uncle Sam machine in hopes of achieving these things, be my guest. As for me, I have decided that no amount of money in federal coffers is going to achieve these goals and I would like to try other things with my contribution.
In fact, I would like to personally be the one who’s choosing whether my money should go into a college account for my daughter or into paying farmers not to grow food. I guess I’m just selfish.
Maybe if the socialists could accomplish their goals, maybe if they didn’t require more money every year in order for things not to improve, maybe I wouldn’t fume. I’m not bitching about us having to pay for what we get. I’m bitching about us not getting half what we are paying for.
Okay, let’s be clear. Markets don’t solve problems. They don’t make people rich, they don’t make people poor. People do all these things. People make problems. People solve problems. Markets are the most efficient way for people to communicate their wants and values to others who can provide for them.
That’s true. And to do things that practically take money out and burn it, you need government.
This is true. No one would pay for it–it’s the government’s job. Have you thought about the sheer amount of waste in government disaster relief. Now imagine a company was providing the same level of relief without the waste. You think there would be room in there for some profit?
Why do assume that if government loses money at it, everyone will? How do you think insurance works?
How could they be any worse?
This is true. However, most of these externalities are in the form of violating someone’s rights, no? Sure, there are small inefficiencies in market-based systems, however, there is no more efficient system. As for big inefficiencies, they tend to be addressed by the libertarian insistence on protecting the rights of individuals.
Well, if I see any of those people, I’ll be sure and slap them around.
I’m not an economist, so it would be foolish for me to try to address those issues in any meaningful way here. However, don’t let my lack of knowledge in this area convince you that it is outside of libertarian thinking. If you want to know those kind of details, visit some of the libertarian sites and check them out.
We’re agreed on that. Ultimately, you trust government a lot more than I do, and people a lot less. Danielinthewolvesden:
Thank you. Let’s make this a little more confusing by suggesting that Beirut is libertarian. That there is a government there that protects all individuals from force and fraud.
And in fact, some kids never in their lives have need for trigonometry or world history. Obviously, you know better, though. Obviously, you have determined what would be a correct and moral way to bring up children.
Has it occurred to you that selling children into slavery would be somewhat of a violation of their rights?
Please, before you draw any more conclusions about libertarian based on your obvious worldly wisdom and announce them to the world, at least bother to learn what libertarianism is.
