# In a libertarian society... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458 "2011-10-12T20:27:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/281 "2011-10-24T23:59:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I would argue it’s an abuse for them to pass them. So if the government banned jumping jacks because people were spraining their ankles. It wouldn’t be an abuse to throw hundreds of thousands in jail for breaking the law? “well it’s the law, can’t do anything about it now” Who’s “them”? The government? If we elected representatives who say they’ll legalize drugs it’ll happen. But if enough people don’t want drugs legalized it won’t happen. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > so is it an abuse of power? Yes. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > [http://www.nyunews.com/opinion/2011/10/05/05dinardo/](http://www.nyunews.com/opinion/2011/10/05/05dinardo/) Opinion piece. Don’t care. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I think it’s > > an abuse to take taxpayer funds and give them to specific companies. It’s not only bad business but the opportunity for corruption is apparent. how is that an abuse? And just drop the whole “opportunity for corruption” business. You’ve already proved you’re not capable of giving a rational argument that this is a valid argument for libertarianism. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > you asked for examples of abuse. I gave a few of the ones that bother me. You might try coming up with some that actually meet a definition of abuse that normal people use. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > sure you can. Doing so wouldn’t give you a complete picture of the society but it would give you an idea on how much power the government had over it’s citizens. No, because there is not some clearly defined trade-of between the 2. It’s more complex than that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/282 "2011-10-25T01:07:54Z")
Okay, another hypothetical. There’s a street full of houses. One guy on the street likes to burn his garbage in his backyard once a week. (We’ll leave aside the other issues and just focus on the fire.) He goes out and makes a big pile of garbage and sets it on fire. Then he leaves to go to work and lets the fire burn itself out. Now examining his firepit, it is determined that there is a five percent chance that the fire will go out of control and burn down the neighborhood. And by the time the fire went off his property it would already be too large to be brought under control. The neighbours have complained to him about this because his fires put their homes in danger. But he says, “Hey, the odds are 20-1 in my favor against there being a fire. Those are great odds and I’m a lucky guy so I’m not going to worry about it. There’s nothing you can say or do to me that will make me stop burning my garbage like this. It’s my property and I can do whatever I want on it. And the rest of you stay off my property.” Now he isn’t using any force against anyone. While he’s arguably being reckless, he isn’t intentionally setting out to burn down the neighbourhood. If you were to look out and see him starting a fire, you couldn’t assume that this particular fire is going to burn out of control. But statistically within less than a year, he’s going to cause a fire that will burn down the neighbourhood. The total damages form such a fire will be millions of dollars and even if the neighbours successfully sue him (and success is debatable) this guy doesn’t have enough money to pay for all that damage. So what’s the libertarian solution? From what’s been said, it seems the libertarian consensus is that you can’t enact a law telling somebody what they can do on their own property just because it might be dangerous. Is the libertarian solution here to either buy a lot of insurance or move out of the neighbourhood? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/283 "2011-10-25T01:31:50Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > Yes. well we elect representatives that vote for the patriot act. When we elect enough who oppose it, it will change > [@kenetic](#): > > Opinion piece. Don’t care. Come on now you know Al-awlaki was an American citizen assassinated without due process or any proof at all. > [@kenetic](#): > > how is that an abuse? And just drop the whole “opportunity for corruption” business. You’ve already proved you’re not capable of giving a rational argument that this is a valid argument for libertarianism. They’re picking favorites. What are you talking about? I think you’re just having a laugh at this point. > [@kenetic](#): > > You might try coming up with some that actually meet a definition of abuse that normal people use. if you consider yourself a normal person I already did that with the patriot act. But how about the unwarranted searches being conducted by the TSA in Tennessee? > [@kenetic](#): > > No, because there is not some clearly defined trade-of between the 2. It’s more complex than that. No my friend libertarian is in fact the opposite of authoritarian. [Libertarianism - Wikipedia](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/284 "2011-10-25T01:31:50Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > You’re not seeing the point. It’s about regulating technology, and mitigating the abuse of freedoms committed by corruption, greed, violence, or [insert negative human trait] by gaming any given system (not about laying down laws restricting the natural course of things, especially biology). Please explain how people who unnecessarily take antibiotics (out of ignorance, I presume, since I really don’t see the point) are “gaming the system”. > [@](#): > > In this land of unleashed liberty, I suppose I can accumulate as much Cobalt 60 as I can find and flush it down my toilet. You can accumulate it, but if it harms others, you’re on the hook. Now please explain why someone would accumulate Cobalt 60 and flush it down the toilet. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/285 "2011-10-25T01:33:44Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Creating exaggerated, hyperbolic statements like “should sneezing in public be against the law” is simple nonsense. There are no laws or regulations, because we have deemed the risk to be low, so we tolerate it. Huh? The risks, and the consequences of sneezing in public are huge. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/286 "2011-10-25T01:38:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Okay, another hypothetical. > > There’s a street full of houses. > > One guy on the street likes to burn his garbage in his backyard once a week. (We’ll leave aside the other issues and just focus on the fire.) He goes out and makes a big pile of garbage and sets it on fire. Then he leaves to go to work and lets the fire burn itself out. > > Now examining his firepit, it is determined that there is a five percent chance that the fire will go out of control and burn down the neighborhood. And by the time the fire went off his property it would already be too large to be brought under control. > > The neighbours have complained to him about this because his fires put their homes in danger. But he says, “Hey, the odds are 20-1 in my favor against there being a fire. Those are great odds and I’m a lucky guy so I’m not going to worry about it. There’s nothing you can say or do to me that will make me stop burning my garbage like this. It’s my property and I can do whatever I want on it. And the rest of you stay off my property.” > > Now he isn’t using any force against anyone. While he’s arguably being reckless, he isn’t intentionally setting out to burn down the neighbourhood. If you were to look out and see him starting a fire, you couldn’t assume that this particular fire is going to burn out of control. > > But statistically within less than a year, he’s going to cause a fire that will burn down the neighbourhood. The total damages form such a fire will be millions of dollars and even if the neighbours successfully sue him (and success is debatable) this guy doesn’t have enough money to pay for all that damage. > > So what’s the libertarian solution? From what’s been said, it seems the libertarian consensus is that you can’t enact a law telling somebody what they can do on their own property just because it might be dangerous. > > Is the libertarian solution here to either buy a lot of insurance or move out of the neighbourhood? No, the libertarian solution is that the neighborhood organizes a firewatch that makes sure that when, within a year, his fire goes out of control, it only burns his house while the firewatch protects the neighboring houses. Then he either moves out, which solves the problem, rebuilds and learns his lesson, which also solves the problem, or gets sued out of whatever he has for attempting to damage the neighboring properties. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/287 "2011-10-25T01:50:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, the libertarian solution is that the neighborhood organizes a firewatch that makes sure that when, within a year, his fire goes out of control, it only burns his house while the firewatch protects the neighboring houses. I said that by the time the fire burns past his property it’s too late to bring it under control. > [@Terr](#): > > Then he either moves out, which solves the problem I don’t think we can or should rely on some deux ex machina to resolve a problem. > [@Terr](#): > > or gets sued out of whatever he has for attempting to damage the neighboring properties. Gets sued on what basis? I thought the whole point if Libertaria was that there’s nobody who can tell you what you can do on your own property. A man has a right to build a fire on his own property. So why would anybody be able to sue him for doing something he has a right to do? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/288 "2011-10-25T01:57:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I said that by the time the fire burns past his property it’s too late to bring it under control. Not if you prepare for it. > [@](#): > > Gets sued on what basis? On proven attempt to damage the property of others, after being warned. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/289 "2011-10-25T02:05:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Not if you prepare for it. > On proven attempt to damage the property of others, after being warned. I guess everyone in Libertopia spends half their spare time warning their neighbors about all the possible hazards that _might_ exist…and the other half telling the neighbors to shove their own lists where the sun don’t shine because they shouldn’t be interfering with their Ghod-Given Freedoms. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/290 "2011-10-25T02:09:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I guess everyone in Libertopia spends half their spare time warning their neighbors about all the possible hazards that _might_ exist… No. But in blatant cases like the one presented, definitely yes. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/291 "2011-10-25T02:26:51Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Huh? The risks, and the consequences of sneezing in public are huge. Well, our current system, in it’s wisdom, has decided that the risks of spreading cold germs are outweighed by the intrusion that would occur if we regulated people’s behavior with respect to sneezing. Instead we rely on social convention (folks generally don’t sneeze in each other’s faces, cover their mouths when sneezing, etc. Do you feel that there should be actual regulations in place for folks who sneeze in public? So why bring it up in the first place? It does not help your case to talk about an exaggerated hypothetical regulation. It’s nonsensical. Or are you trying to make the case that the slippery slope of regulations will eventually lead here? Or are you under the misapprehension that risks involved in sneezing in public are directly the same as the risks of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Or that the ease of regulating sneezing in public would be the same as the ease of restricting antibiotic availability through medical doctors prescriptions? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/292 "2011-10-25T02:46:51Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Well, our current system, in it’s wisdom, has decided that the risks of spreading cold germs are outweighed by the intrusion that would occur if we regulated people’s behavior with respect to sneezing. Instead we rely on social convention (folks generally don’t sneeze in each other’s faces, cover their mouths when sneezing, etc. > > Do you feel that there should be actual regulations in place for folks who sneeze in public? > > So why bring it up in the first place? It does not help your case to talk about an exaggerated hypothetical regulation. It’s nonsensical. Or are you trying to make the case that the slippery slope of regulations will eventually lead here? > > Or are you under the misapprehension that risks involved in sneezing in public are directly the same as the risks of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Or that the ease of regulating sneezing in public would be the same as the ease of restricting antibiotic availability through medical doctors prescriptions? I gave you the example of the same principle where the government presently does not intervene. Same principle - big risks to public health (about 40,000 fatalities a year for the sneezes - how many deaths are due to the antibiotics abuse?) that could be alleviated by government restricting people’s freedom. Your explanation of that non-intervention in one case and intervention in the other relies on the “wisdom” of the current system, which is frankly ridiculous. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/293 "2011-10-25T03:13:55Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Not if you prepare for it. So is that like wizardry or something? Libertarians have special powers over fire that other people don’t have? Or is it more of a Batman thing? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/294 "2011-10-25T03:20:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So is that like wizardry or something? Libertarians have special powers over fire that other people don’t have? Or is it more of a Batman thing? If the neighborhood prepares for the fire, it can be stopped at the border of his property. The “wizardry” would be creating a fire on your plot that cannot be stopped. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/295 "2011-10-25T03:21:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I gave you the example of the same principle where the government presently does not intervene. Same principle - big risks to public health (about 40,000 fatalities a year for the sneezes - how many deaths are due to the antibiotics abuse?) that could be alleviated by government restricting people’s freedom. > > Your explanation of that non-intervention in one case and intervention in the other relies on the “wisdom” of the current system, which is frankly ridiculous. Try again. I’ll make this simple since libertarians seem to lack common sense. Sneezing in public has a small chance of making someone else temporarily sick. Breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria has good chance of killing a lot of people. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/296 "2011-10-25T03:43:17Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I’ll make this simple since libertarians seem to lack common sense. > > Sneezing in public has a small chance of making someone else temporarily sick. > > Breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria has good chance of killing a lot of people. Since that is how flu spreads, although one person sneezing in public has a small chance of making someone sick, the society-wide effect in the US is 40K people dying a year. One person taking antibiotics when he doesn’t need to has a tiny chance of breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria. Can you tell me how many people’s deaths every year can be attributed to such bacteria? Oh, by the way: [Although antibiotic resistance may complicate treatment of ICU patients with healthcare-associated infections, it doesn’t greatly worsen their survival prospects, researchers said.](http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/23675) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/297 "2011-10-25T03:48:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Please explain how people who unnecessarily take antibiotics (out of ignorance, I presume, since I really don’t see the point) are “gaming the system”. I was talking in general terms, in the case of needlessly taking antibiotics because they have a cold, that ignorance. Gaming the system is finding unscrupulous or criminal ways to turn circumstances to your advantage. I’m not saying such things don’t happen now, but Libertarianism wouldn’t be able to do much about it until after the fact. > [@Terr](#): > > You can accumulate it, but if it harms others, you’re on the hook. That’s a mind-blowingly stupid policy of epic proportions. > [@Terr](#): > > Now please explain why someone would accumulate Cobalt 60 and flush it down the toilet. What do you care? This is America, dammit. Fine, I’ll tell you… I work at a medical treatment center for cancer patients that uses cobalt 60. Since the EPA, NRC and the Department of Transportation are rendered moot, I safely transport some of it to irradiate my milk and canned foods for sterilization, since the USDA and FDA have been dissolved, so you can never be too careful. I just flush this stuff down the toilet, because it’s just a little bit, and how would the authorities find out which house it was coming from, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/298 "2011-10-25T03:59:52Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > I was talking in general terms, in the case of needlessly taking antibiotics because they have a cold, that ignorance. Gaming the system is finding unscrupulous or criminal ways to turn circumstances to your advantage. Then maybe you should find another example, so you could have something concrete to go with your “general terms”. > [@](#): > > Fine, I’ll tell you… I work at a medical treatment center for cancer patients that uses cobalt 60. Since the EPA, NRC and the Department of Transportation are rendered moot, I safely transport some of it to irradiate my milk and canned foods for sterilization, since the USDA and FDA have been dissolved, so you can never be too careful. I just flush this stuff down the toilet, because it’s just a little bit, and how would the authorities find out which house it was coming from, anyway. First of all, if you already have it, why not keep it to “irradiate your milk and canned goods” (although why you’d want to do it when it is already done at the factory, I don’t know). Second - yes, they definitely can find out which house it was coming from (radioactive tracing is simple, and Cobalt 60 half life is ~5 years - definitely long enough), and then your goose is cooked. If you want to (for the sake of argument) throw away your life in order to sterilize the already-sterilized milk, that just proves you’re (for the sake of argument) enormously stupid. And as you know nothing can be fool-proofed, because fools are so damn ingenious. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/299 "2011-10-25T04:02:51Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If the neighborhood prepares for the fire, it can be stopped at the border of his property. The “wizardry” would be creating a fire on your plot that cannot be stopped. This is the equivalent of saying “I cooked it” when asked how you prepared a filet Mignon. Please tell us how you can prepare a neighborhood so that it is possible to stop a fire at the property line every time. Do you actually wait until it crosses the invisible property line, or do you cross over onto the neighbor’s property and put it out before it gets to your property? Does every block have a fire hydrant? Are there no row houses? What stops the fire from spreading from your neighbor’s trees to your trees? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458/300 "2011-10-25T04:03:58Z")
> [@](#): > > If the neighborhood prepares for the fire, it can be stopped at the border of his property. The “wizardry” would be creating a fire on your plot that cannot be stopped. Do the neighbors keep this firefighting equipment on the street right in front of his house every day, just waiting? Because that’s going to cost them an exorbitant amount of money. Or do they just call in the fire trucks when the fire is starting to get out of control? Is wherever the trucks are stored very close to the neighborhood? Make it too close, and you get the same problem as if they’re just parked there: If they’re serving a small enough area, it’ll cost the folks in that area too much. And by the time it reaches the property line, it’ll already be a really big fire. Big fires are a lot harder to put out, so you’d better make sure it’s really good (i.e., expensive) equipment. > [@](#): > > On proven attempt to damage the property of others, after being warned. But he’s not attempting to damage the property of others. He’s just attempting to get rid of his garbage. And if his intent doesn’t matter, why does the intent of the people breeding the supergerms matter? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-libertarian-society/599458.md?page=16)