# Is this acceptable to libertarians? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2013, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528 "2013-01-27T12:35:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/21 "2013-01-27T21:33:36Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “I’ve got mine, screw you” is one of the most common and notorious features of libertarianism; not some little fringe problem with the movement. As far as I can tell, for many libertarians that’s pretty much all that libertarianism is. And some inverse is often the cause of their conversion. I have another friend who dresses daily in Libertarian Party colors, who became a flaming Libby because (25 years ago) California would not let her bring her non smog-compliant car into the state. So all gummint became oppression and she never shuts up about it. Frankly, I am daily thankful that Libertarians weren’t in charge when it came time to start implementing pollution controls. We’d all be wandering around the smoking wasteland postulated for our future around 1970. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/22 "2013-01-27T21:36:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Until then, I’m just pointing out that you are simply making stuff up. No, I’m not. I’m simply pointing out something that is both obvious and well known that for whatever reason you don’t want to admit. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/23 "2013-01-27T21:38:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There are lots of libertarians on this MB. When one shows up making the argument you claim that most libertarians make, you can debate that argument with them. Until then, I’m just pointing out that you are simply making stuff up. Of course, John. We Just Don’t Understand, Do We? This is the final argument of Libertarians who can’t be held to an accountable answer - that no Libertarian THEY know of would say such a thing. Which means, in my experience, that Libertarianism is a party of individuals who don’t agree on anything except that non-Ls are too stupid to understand. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/24 "2013-01-27T21:38:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, I’m not. I’m simply pointing out something that is both obvious and well known that for whatever reason you don’t want to admit. Well, then I’m sure we’ll be inundated with libertarians shortly who agree with what you say about them. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/25 "2013-01-27T21:41:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, then I’m sure we’ll be inundated with libertarians shortly who agree with what you say about them. Quite possibly we will. I’ve certainly gotten into enough arguments with “let the weak perish” types here on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/26 "2013-01-27T21:48:41Z")
Well, if I may suggest, why not wait until someone actually _makes_ a “let the weak perish” argument in this thread before you get to your 15th post about how you see it all the time? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/27 "2013-01-27T21:54:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, if I may suggest, why not wait until someone actually _makes_ a “let the weak perish” argument in this thread before you get to your 15th post about how you see it all the time? I made one such to express my opinion; my other posts were in response to **John Mace**. Why aren’t you criticizing _him_? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/28 "2013-01-27T22:07:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You are confusing a legal duty with a moral duty. They can be, but needn’t be the same. > > When it comes to helping people, many libertarians are happy to do so. They just don’t think they should be required by law to do so. Isn’t the question: Is the desert contract enforceable? So it is a legal question. The common law has long had a doctrine of [undue influence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_influence), which in parts states that a party who purports to make a contract in the face of exceptional, (generally) short-lived stressors, and would renounce that contract once the stressor is removed, will be found not to have genuinely accepted the terms of the offer. The desert scenario would probably be one of undue influence. The excessive demand in light of the actual cost of the rescue would also be avoided as [unconscionable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability). Instead, the court would likely conduct its own factual inquiry into the cost of the rescue and hold the rescuee responsible for those costs (plus perhaps an overhead) on the doctrine of quantum meruit. The question presented in the OP is: In general, would a libertarian regime adopt defenses to contractual performance such as undue influence and unconscionability. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/29 "2013-01-27T22:39:19Z")
> [@hrhomer](#): > > I’m not sure if I’m a Libertarian or not, but I find their ideas intriguing, and I’d like to subscribe to their newsletter. > > That said, are you fucking high? If B has the ability to save A’s life in the example you put forth, but does not do so without promise of payment in writing, B is an awful human being, and that is not acceptable. > > I’m sure there’s a broader point I’m missing, as I do not know what Libertarianism has to do with the OP. Sounds like an asshole test, not a political test. Best damn post I’ve read in a long, long time. The Ever Present Straw Man against Libertarianism: 1. Something bad might happen to somebody, somewhere… or 2. Somebody might be mean to somebody else, somewhere So let’s pass a law against it! Yeah! That’s it. That will solve the problem. Just like gun control laws in Chicago or D.C. What? Libertarians are against such things? Then they must want people to die! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/30 "2013-01-27T23:46:09Z")
There’s an interesting concrete example: many states have laws against profiteering in emergency events. If a hurricane is approaching, the law prohibits selling bottled water, or batteries, or plywood, or bandages, at grossly marked-up prices. Many libertarians have argued against these laws, saying that the government has no business regulating “free trade.” Supporters of the laws point out that having a hurricane looming over you is, in itself, a severe limitation on “freedom,” and that the purchases of emergency supplies is not a part of the natural, organic free market. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/31 "2013-01-28T05:57:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There’s an interesting concrete example: many states have laws against profiteering in emergency events. If a hurricane is approaching, the law prohibits selling bottled water, or batteries, or plywood, or bandages, at grossly marked-up prices. > > Many libertarians have argued against these laws, saying that the government has no business regulating “free trade.” Supporters of the laws point out that having a hurricane looming over you is, in itself, a severe limitation on “freedom,” and that the purchases of emergency supplies is not a part of the natural, organic free market. On the other hand, by disallowing the price to increase to match demand, one also promotes gratuitous purchasing by risk-averse, but perhaps not very imperiled, consumers. So by forcing the price of batteries to stay low, the suburbanite who’s not in the direct path of the disaster doesn’t have to weigh seriously the trade-off between buying now-expensive generators versus the actual risk he faces — because he no longer has to confront this trade-off at all. It also removes the salutary effect of negatively encouraging those suburbanites to purchase emergency supplies early on. This is desirable because these suburbanites are usually better able to afford stocking up on emergency supplies early, and then those who are less able to afford them are not confronted with as bad a supply shock when the looming peril of disaster is no longer capable of being deferred. So by implementing price controls, we fail to direct resources to those who value them most highly in favor of those who tend to have more ready access to the marketplace (i.e., richer people). We also fail to take advantage of the coordination advantage that price gouging creates: rich people buy earlier in order to avoid high prices immediately preceding the disaster; this, in turn, means that fewer people are buying generators when they are needed most and in shortest supply. Other people pay high prices, but they are less likely to faced cleared-out inventories. (And as noted, low inventory situations themselves favor rich people). ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/32 "2013-01-28T06:21:04Z")
I used to consider myself a libertarian (note the lower-case l); I’m sure many libertarians are intelligent, good-spirited, with good ideas. The problem is sophomores who, like a child with a hammer, seize on one idea and apply it everywhere. We saw this just a few days ago: A certain **Rob Rock** , or such, mentioned computers as products where free-market worked well, and extrapolated that Food Safety should be privatised. Or Republicans who note that decreasing tax on the rich from 70% to 60% increases their incentives and therefore conclude that no tax on the rich can ever be too low. (Again, thank **Rob Rock** for this brilliant analysis.) In these forums we have definitely heard from people calling themselves “Libertarians” who have proposed blatant absurdities. I’ve asked Libertarian Dopers to start their own thread “_Let’s Agree on our Platform – Libertarians ONLY Please_.” Until they do that, the rest of us will continue to poke fun at their self-caricatures. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/33 "2013-01-28T06:33:37Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > We also fail to take advantage of the coordination advantage that price gouging creates: rich people buy earlier in order to avoid high prices immediately preceding the disaster; this, in turn, means that fewer people are buying generators when they are needed most and in shortest supply. Other people pay high prices, but they are less likely to faced cleared-out inventories. And of course it means that people who would otherwise be able to afford one, can’t. And it increases the likelihood of people taking what they need by force, and of revenge killings if the price gouging gets people killed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/34 "2013-01-28T06:38:19Z")
> [@cultivar07](#): > > A is dying in a desert, B sees him and offers him a deal, he writes down a deal, which would require A to give him all his property and money in return for getting out of the desert alive. > > Is this acceptable to libertarians? Seems like a classic contract, and there is no coersion or violence, just a simple deal. It is an extreme example, though. Genesis 25: [29] Once when Jacob was boiling pottage, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. [30] And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red pottage, for I am famished!” (Therefore his name was called Edom.) [31] Jacob said, “First sell me your birthright.” [32] Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” [33] Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. [34] Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright. Not that Libertarians should care for Scripture . . . ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/35 "2013-01-28T07:07:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There’s an interesting concrete example: many states have laws against profiteering in emergency events. If a hurricane is approaching, the law prohibits selling bottled water, or batteries, or plywood, or bandages, at grossly marked-up prices. > > Many libertarians have argued against these laws, saying that the government has no business regulating “free trade.” Supporters of the laws point out that having a hurricane looming over you is, in itself, a severe limitation on “freedom,” and that the purchases of emergency supplies is not a part of the natural, organic free market. Price gouging’s a great example of what’s wrong with libertarianism. For most people, a disaster’s an opportunity for people to pull together, cooperate, and support each other. For libertarians it’s a chance to exploit each other. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/36 "2013-01-28T07:24:08Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Price gouging’s a great example of what’s wrong with libertarianism. For most people, a disaster’s an opportunity for people to pull together, cooperate, and support each other. For libertarians it’s a chance to exploit each other. You can’t cooperate gasoline out of the ground. You have to buy it. (Well, you _could_ given enough time, but it’s beyond the scope of a disaster-ravaged population.) ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/37 "2013-01-28T07:34:06Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And of course it means that people who would otherwise be able to afford one, can’t. And it increases the likelihood of people taking what they need by force, and of revenge killings if the price gouging gets people killed. On the other hand, my dad couldn’t afford to buy local gasoline last year when the derecho hit. It wasn’t that the price went up, it was that the wait time shot way up. Had he had the option of paying for the scarcity with dollars rather than hours, he would have been able to afford it. (It was also a good example of the market having imperfect information. There was wait-free gas 20 minutes down the road, but people panicked and waited for hours at the first open station they saw.) ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/38 "2013-01-28T07:39:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And of course it means that people who would otherwise be able to afford one, can’t. And it increases the likelihood of people taking what they need by force, and of revenge killings if the price gouging gets people killed. If they were not able to afford it before disaster was looming, why would they suddenly be able to once it was imminent? If they could have, but did not, then you see why the coordination effect of increased prices is valued: we want to encourage preparedness before it becomes necessary. Increased access to funds has not ever been a hallmark of an impending disaster or its recent aftermath, in my experience. That is to say, people don’t magically fund more money during a crisis. So either these people could have afforded it long ago, or they can’t afford it at all. Yes, there are some people who can’t afford emergency supplies at any time. How do price controls help them? By hypothesis they can’t even afford non-disaster rates. Price controls are little more than subsidies for the adequately-funded indolent. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/39 "2013-01-28T10:38:41Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > If they were not able to afford it before disaster was looming, why would they suddenly be able to once it was imminent? :rolleyes: What makes you think they couldn’t? People tend to buy things when they are needed. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > So either these people could have afforded it long ago, or they can’t afford it at all. Or they just can’t afford to buy every single thing for every single possible problem. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Price controls are little more than subsidies for the adequately-funded indolent. Ah, libertarians; they just can’t resist sneering at those they consider “inferior”. How about, “Price controls are to keep the vulnerable from being exploited, and to keep would-be exploiters from being robbed and killed”. Like many libertarians, I note that you assume that your victims will passively take unlimited amounts of abuse without retaliating. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528/40 "2013-01-28T12:11:52Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > On the other hand, by disallowing the price to increase to match demand, one also promotes gratuitous purchasing by risk-averse, but perhaps not very imperiled, consumers. So by forcing the price of batteries to stay low, the suburbanite who’s not in the direct path of the disaster doesn’t have to weigh seriously the trade-off between buying now-expensive generators versus the actual risk he faces — because he no longer has to confront this trade-off at all. > > It also removes the salutary effect of negatively encouraging those suburbanites to purchase emergency supplies early on. This is desirable because these suburbanites are usually better able to afford stocking up on emergency supplies early, and then those who are less able to afford them are not confronted with as bad a supply shock when the looming peril of disaster is no longer capable of being deferred. > > So by implementing price controls, we fail to direct resources to those who value them most highly in favor of those who tend to have more ready access to the marketplace (i.e., richer people). We also fail to take advantage of the coordination advantage that price gouging creates: rich people buy earlier in order to avoid high prices immediately preceding the disaster; this, in turn, means that fewer people are buying generators when they are needed most and in shortest supply. Other people pay high prices, but they are less likely to faced cleared-out inventories. (And as noted, low inventory situations themselves favor rich people). I agree with this. Say a natural disaster wipes out the power in a particular area, but just outside the affected area, there is a hotel. Under the price controls, they can’t charge more than the $70/night they were charging prior to the disaster. Everyone wants to stay there including, 1: Grandma, who needs power to her oxygen supply or else she would die. 2: Partiers who want to drink booze and have air conditioning. Under the “no price control” scenario, the partiers would see the increased cost as not worth it and stay home. Grandma would see it as an absolute necessity and a room would be available for her. Under the price controls, she has to stand in line behind guys with their crates of liquor and may not get a room. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-acceptable-to-libertarians/648528.md?page=3)