In a libertarian society...

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

In some ways yes they will be more powerful, but in ways that inhibit human freedom they will be less powerful. Government grants corporations certain powers they would never have in libertarian society, like legalized pollution and subsidies

Here’s an analogy.

Imagine it’s the city of Springfield and Fat Tony is the local mob boss. He runs all the organized crime in Springfield - the brothels, the casinos, the opium dens, the speakeasies, etc. And the reason he’s able to get away with all of this is because Mayor Quimby and Police Chief Wiggums are corrupt - they take Tony’s bribes and let him do whatever he wants. And most of the other politicians and police officers are in on it as well.

Now we’d both agree that the corrupt government in Springfield is a problem. But the libertarian solution is to essentially abolish the government. That would remove Quimby and Wiggums and the other corrupt officials. But it would leave Fat Tony untouched. If a corrupt government had “granted” him the power to run his crime empire, a non-existent government would make it possible for him to run an even bigger crime empire without worrying about the government.

Now you can argue that all of the things Fat Tony does are still illegal. And that’s true. But the laws alone don’t stop Fat Tony. You have to have somebody that has the power to enforce those laws.

Fat Tony doesn’t need a government to allow him to commit crimes - he does that on his own initiative. But the city needs a government to stop Fat Tony from committing crimes.

[WillFarnaby]

@Fear_Itself

You mean like corporate agriculture getting paid not to plant crops? That sort of thing?

Yes exactly that would be an excellent example. Libertarians are against things like that.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Terr

It is rational to preserve freedom, without succumbing to panicked predictions.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria exist, and it is a fact that people taking antibiotics needlessly is one of the main reasons for their existence and spread. It’s not a panicked prediction - it is a fact.

@Terr

It is rational to say that it is not the government’s task to protect people from their own stupidity. If your neighbor stupidly burns down his house, the fire can easily jump to yours. Should the government outlaw matches?

Flawed analogy. If your neighbor is burning piles of brush in a dry area, and it is likely to spread to the neighborhood, the government should outlaw burning brush. Because this makes sense.

@Terr

The harm is theoretical, and is not direct. Due to chaos theory, your neighbor’s outdoor fan may eventually lead to a tornado that will destroy your house. Is it “rational” to forbid him to have it? Is he “causing you harm” by turning it on?

We’re not talking about theoretical harm here. We’re talking about a very well understood phenomenon; When people misuse antibiotics, they help to create resistant bacteria, which then go on to cause harm to the public
Please read this WHO fact sheet if you need to become better informed

Inappropriate and irrational use of antimicrobial medicines provides favourable conditions for resistant microorganisms to emerge, spread and persist.

@Terr

In a libertarian society, it is ok to do whatever the hell you want, as long as you’re not initiating force against others. If you can prove that someone’s actions harmed you, you would be able to sue the person for restitution and have the state enforce the verdict, if you won. That’s one of the legitimate functions of the government. Limiting someone’s access to medicines isn’t.

Sadly, you and many others would be dead. Or seriously sick, from a resistant bacterial infection that could have been prevented by good public health policy. Of course your heirs could sue - that should make you feel better.

You’ve highlighted one of the major flaws in your philosophy. With non-existent regulations, you can only fix things after the harm has taken place. And if the harm includes your death, I don’t think money is going to help you. I imagine lawyers would love this system, since lawsuits would be incredibly common.

[Fear_Itself]

@WillFarnaby

Yes exactly that would be an excellent example. Libertarians are against things like that.

OK, I just wanted some idea who these lazy people draining the goverment were.

[septimus]

@WillFarnaby

Can a corporation imprison you? Can a corporation coerce money from you? Can a corporation grant itself special privileges under the guise of promoting general welfare? Can a corporation have you assassinated with no legal ramifications? Can a corporation grant itself permission to pollute with no punitive action?

In a libertarian society the answer to these questions is no.

You seem to define “libertarianism” as “a system where government is magically benevolent.” I don’t know where you hope to get the magic, but you need to talk to other “libertarians,” in whose Utopia government exists only to serve the property owners.

I’m really REALLY curious how you envision your system working without magic. Do you have free elections? If so, is there a constitutional clause that government cannot do “non-libertarian things”, e.g. banning pollution? If so, who elects the judges who decide what passes libertarian muster?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

One more thing:

I"m sure that as a defense lawyer, I could easily find an “expert” to swear on a stack of bibles that anitbiotic resistant bacteria are caused by bad vapors and humors, and not at all due to the defendant. And smoking does not harm you either.

[WillFarnaby]

@Little_Nemo

Here’s an analogy.

Imagine it’s the city of Springfield and Fat Tony is the local mob boss. He runs all the organized crime in Springfield - the brothels, the casinos, the opium dens, the speakeasies, etc. And the reason he’s able to get away with all of this is because Mayor Quimby and Police Chief Wiggums are corrupt - they take Tony’s bribes and let him do whatever he wants. And most of the other politicians and police officers are in on it as well.

Now we’d both agree that the corrupt government in Springfield is a problem. But the libertarian solution is to essentially abolish the government. That would remove Quimby and Wiggums and the other corrupt officials. But it would leave Fat Tony untouched. If a corrupt government had “granted” him the power to run his crime empire, a non-existent government would make it possible for him to run an even bigger crime empire without worrying about the government.

No the libertarian solution would be to legalize prostitution and drugs and open up the market to competition. Why do you guys keep confusing libertarianism with anarchy? There would be no crime empire because Fat Tony wouldn’t be receiving privilege from the government. The government would be responsible for holding him accountable for murder and coercion.

Now you can argue that all of the things Fat Tony does are still illegal. And that’s true. But the laws alone don’t stop Fat Tony. You have to have somebody that has the power to enforce those laws.

Exactly that’s why we wouldnt abolish government, just take it’s power to enforce prostitution and drug laws

Fat Tony doesn’t need a government to allow him to commit crimes - he does that on his own initiative. But the city needs a government to stop Fat Tony from committing crimes.

Never said otherwise. You guys should read up on the differences between libertarianism and anarchy

[cmyk]

I think the idea of our current government is more along the lines of allowing the government protect me from other’s stupidity – which is far more common, unfortunately – before I’m actually injured or dead.

[Terr]

@Little_Nemo

He runs all the organized crime in Springfield - the brothels, the casinos, the opium dens, the speakeasies, etc.

Now you can argue that all of the things Fat Tony does are still illegal.

No. They wouldn’t be. Not the brothels, the casinos, the opium dens or the speakeasies.

[Czarcasm]

@Terr

No. They wouldn’t be. Not the brothels, the casinos, the opium dens or the speakeasies.

So Libertarians are against public health, and are for legalizing crimes run by mobsters.
Are you sure you’re one of them?

[cmyk]

@WillFarnaby

No the libertarian solution would be to legalize prostitution and drugs and open up the market to competition. Why do you guys keep confusing libertarianism with anarchy? There would be no crime empire because Fat Tony wouldn’t be receiving privilege from the government. The government would be responsible for holding him accountable for murder and coercion.

Now you can argue that all of the things Fat Tony does are still illegal. And that’s true. But the laws alone don’t stop Fat Tony. You have to have somebody that has the power to enforce those laws.

Exactly that’s why we wouldnt abolish government, just take it’s power to enforce prostitution and drug laws

Fat Tony doesn’t need a government to allow him to commit crimes - he does that on his own initiative. But the city needs a government to stop Fat Tony from committing crimes.

Never said otherwise. You guys should read up on the differences between libertarianism and anarchy

Regardless, crime rates will sky-rocket. And in new and profound ways, since we have abusable technologies that never existed even 20 years ago. You honestly think it’s a good idea to have competition in extremely hedonistic, and highly addictive markets?

I predict a lot of bloodshed.

[Terr]

@Czarcasm

So Libertarians are against public health, and are for legalizing crimes run by mobsters.

No. They are not “against public health”. And it is not a crime unless force is initiated or property is damaged. None of the things you listed qualify.

[Terr]

@cmyk

Regardless, crime rates will sky-rocket.

No, they would drop. And we would not be putting people in jail for choosing to ingest something of which we disapprove or engaging in games we don’t like. Win-win.

[Fear_Itself]

@WillFarnaby

No the libertarian solution would be to legalize prostitution and drugs and open up the market to competition. Why do you guys keep confusing libertarianism with anarchy? There would be no crime empire because Fat Tony wouldn’t be receiving privilege from the government. The government would be responsible for holding him accountable for murder and coercion.

Why would Libertopia reduce the corruption of Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggum? Are they magically immune to bribes now?

[Chronos]

I’m still puzzled what definition of “initiating force” could possibly exclude breeding superdiseases. Would you let the psychopath who was mailing around anthrax spores off the hook, too?

And what’s this about individualism being inherently human, while we’re at it? Humans are and always have been a very social species. We live in societies, and any realistic philosophy has to recognize that.

[Lobohan]

Is sex with children illegal in Libertopia?

Is prostitution illegal if it uses white slavery to supply it?

Is PCP legal to sell at sporting events?

Underground boxing is legal, I assume. Other bloodsports?

If I film you in Libertopia, does the government tell me that I can’t disseminate the film without your permission? Or can I create a documentary on your nine year old daughter?

If someone wants to have a night club where you torture animals, is that okay?

If I own a factory, can I burn as much carbon as I like? When does the acid rain become enough of an issue for me to get cited? What if the people downwind have a higher incidence of lung problems. Exactly when do I get in trouble?

Can I display a video of a well-endowed man ejaculating on my competitor’s product on a video billboard above my factory? I assume there are no laws telling me what I can’t do with my building.

Can I hire people who are dying, dope them up on drugs and sell the right to fight them with swords?

Can I control the private rape-testing labs in a city and then sell exclusions to people so I won’t find their dna a match for any evidence?

Can I have a booth at the mall that lets you (non-lethally) shock a person I hire?

If I killed my wife, but I refuse to let the police on my property and say she refuses to see them, what can they do?

If I invent a drug that is highly addictive, can I put it in the food I serve at my soup kitchen?
These are the first few questions I could think of off the top of my head. Can I get the Official Libertarian Stance on these questions?

[cmyk]

@Terr

No, they would drop. And we would not be putting people in jail for choosing to ingest something of which we disapprove or engaging in games we don’t like. Win-win.

I disagree. If you open markets up to competition which inherently attract the more unscrupulous and greedy among us, they will find ways to eliminate the competition.

Even if you’re right, and abolishing illegal substances and activities like heroin and prostitution would make crime rates drop, because there are no laws preventing these, crime rates will rise in violence, coercion and murder to game the market system to their advantage.

Especially if the law enforcement and legal system is less effective than it is now, which I’d argue it would be.

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

No the libertarian solution would be to legalize prostitution and drugs and open up the market to competition. Why do you guys keep confusing libertarianism with anarchy? There would be no crime empire because Fat Tony wouldn’t be receiving privilege from the government. The government would be responsible for holding him accountable for murder and coercion.

Exactly that’s why we wouldnt abolish government, just take it’s power to enforce prostitution and drug laws

Never said otherwise. You guys should read up on the differences between libertarianism and anarchy

Okay, I used some poor examples. Allow me to represent my analogy with a slight modification.

Imagine it’s the city of Springfield and Fat Tony is the local mob boss. He runs all the organized crime in Springfield - extortion, car theft rings, murder-for-hire, etc. And the reason he’s able to get away with all of this is because Mayor Quimby and Police Chief Wiggums are corrupt - they take Tony’s bribes and let him do whatever he wants. And most of the other politicians and police officers are in on it as well.

Now we’d both agree that the corrupt government in Springfield is a problem. But the libertarian solution is to essentially abolish the government. That would remove Quimby and Wiggums and the other corrupt officials. But it would leave Fat Tony untouched. If a corrupt government had “granted” him the power to run his crime empire, a non-existent government would make it possible for him to run an even bigger crime empire without worrying about the government.

Now you can argue that all of the things Fat Tony does are still illegal. And that’s true. But the laws alone don’t stop Fat Tony. You have to have somebody that has the power to enforce those laws.

Fat Tony doesn’t need a government to allow him to commit crimes - he does that on his own initiative. But the city needs a government to stop Fat Tony from committing crimes.

Okay, so this time we have Fat Tony doing traditional organized crime activities we all agree should be illegal.

Reading the rest of your response, how is your government any different from what we have now? You’re saying “the government” is the problem. But your system is going to have the exact same government with just a different political party holding office.

If Democrats and Republicans take bribes to allow Fat Tony to commit crimes, why should we believe Libertarians won’t do the same? If Democrats and Republicans accept campaign contributions in exchange for enacting laws that favor corporations, why should we believe Libertarians won’t do the same?

[Terr]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Flawed analogy. If your neighbor is burning piles of brush in a dry area, and it is likely to spread to the neighborhood, the government should outlaw burning brush. Because this makes sense.

The analogy is not “flawed” just because you don’t like it.

You’ve highlighted one of the major flaws in your philosophy. With non-existent regulations, you can only fix things after the harm has taken place. And if the harm includes your death, I don’t think money is going to help you. I imagine lawyers would love this system, since lawsuits would be incredibly common.

It is not a flaw. It is the consequence of allowing people to be free. Unlike your philosophy, where freedom needs to be tightly constrained in every aspect of people’s lives, lest something they do cause some possible harm or inconvenience to someone in the future.

[Terr]

@Chronos

I’m still puzzled what definition of “initiating force” could possibly exclude breeding superdiseases. Would you let the psychopath who was mailing around anthrax spores off the hook, too?

The harm is not direct. Due to chaos theory, your neighbor’s outdoor fan may eventually lead to a tornado that will destroy your house. Is it “rational” to forbid him to have it? Is he “causing you harm” by turning it on?

And no, mailing anthrax spores is a direct attempt to harm someone. Try another example.