Libertaria: a case study

Great Debates
1

For you Libertarians out there (and little ‘l’ libertarians!) I’ve got something I’d like some input on.

Most people attack Libertaria on rather sweeping economic grounds, much like many people attack other ideal states (I wouldn’t call them utopias, FTR) like, for instance, pure communism. That’s great. Whatever floats your boat. But, to tell the truth, it takes more than sweepig arguments on specious grounds (well, what I consider specious, anyway) to sway me away from Libertaria.

However, some time ago—while travelling along one of those moving sidewalks at an airport, actually, though that is really beside the point—a thought struck me regarding Libertaria’s free market and how it will accomplish so many things.

No, it isn’t how a private road system would work, nor how expensive mail would be, nor any of the myriad things that are hinted at whenever someone supports such a limited government. What interested me, for no personal reason, was a simple issue like handicapped entrances to public facilities, as well as the existence of restrooms which facilitate handicapped persons.

Now, I am not handicapped, and I’ve never given the idea of what it is like to be handicapped much thought. But for some reason that thought struck me while on that moving sidewalk: what incentive does anyone have for restructuring their property to facilitate its use by handicapped persons? Wheelchair ramps, special parking (that is often more than adequate for the number of handicapped persons attempting to utilize them, and in fact I’ve never seen all the handicapped spaces utilized at a store before), retrofitting bathrooms… these aren’t really cheap operations. No, they aren’t especially expensive, either, but they aren’t cheap.

So America, in some hypothetical world, went libertarian after WWII. But none of the buildings at this time were really equipped with handicapped access (if any of them were, I don’t know, wasn’t around then). So how does this begin? What incentive is there? None that I can see, to tell the truth.

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me that Libertaria can’t address this one little situation adequately. And if it could, how? And, as a corollary question, why didn’t the market address this to begin with, then?

2

I think the theme of your post is found here:

I’m sure that, once the regulars from past libertarianism debates get here, the thread will explode with hyperbole (from both sides) and Giant Squid scenarios, so before that happens, I’d like to chime in with a response that I dare say many people won’t like. But I think it is an honest response.

Libertarianism does not claim, and is not designed, to “address” anything other than freedom. It doesn’t fix people’s problems, but merely gives them a context in which they are free to use any peaceful and honest means at their disposal to fix them themselves. They may ask for help, but no help is required from anyone.

And before things get too out of hand, I’d like to address in general the whole notion of tying libertarianism to capitalism. That’s a mistake. In libertarian terms, a free-market means a market that is free from coercion and fraud with respect to the individual. If, for any individual, the market of choice is communism, then libertarianism grants him the freedom to pursue his own happiness in his own way.

Okay, I have on my shields. Jodi. Where are you? :wink:

3

Well, both libertarianism and the market could address this situation to some degree, although maybe inadequately. A disabled person is free to arrange his life so that it works. E.g., a crippled person can shop for most things by catalogue. A quadreplegic, like Berkeley Professor MK, can get himself to campus in his own special van.

I agree that standardized workplace requirements for wheelchair accessibility wouldn’t happen. It certainly would be conceivable that certain employers might create a work environment suitable for wheelchair-bound employees and solicit them. Whether or not that would occur is anyone’s guess. Without wheelchair accessible toilets, I’m not sure MK would be able to work. (That is, I don’t know whether special arrangements could have been made.)

For better or for worse, what would not exist is a presumption that the disabled must be able to participate in normal ways. E.g., the requirement of wheelchair accessibility for bathrooms, public busses, etc.

4

This may be true as applied to “small l” libertarianism as a political philosophy, but I must respectfully disagree that “big L” libertarians make no claims about the Market’s ability to deal with social ills. My first major outing in GD was just such a discussion, where all sorts of Invisible Hand apologia were offered.

The very problem most of us “modern” liberals have with libertarianism is that it is a hard line philosophy which does not recognize the relevance of social needs to government action (and vice versa). I’m pleased to see that no claims will be made here regarding the effectiveness with which all social programs could be replaced by nongovernmental forces, merely an admission that the government of Liberalia would not attempt such programs.

5

Whoops! Replace “Liberalia” above with “Libertaria”.
ahem

6

Ahem, indeed, Xeno! :smiley: A delightful slip. I agree with you that there is an awful lot of sloppiness with respect to the application of libertarianism. And I do not begrudge that it does not suit your taste or the taste of liberals. (It also doesn’t suit conservatives.)

But if I may offer evidence that I interpret the philosophy correctly, I would offer the underpinning principle itself, the Principle of Noncoercion. A priori, that principle forbids unwanted interference in the affairs of others who are peaceful and honest, including forcing upon them an economy (including capitalism) that they don’t want.

7

Oh, I’m certainly not doubting your interpretation of the philosophy, Lib! But I think the thrust of the OP’s assertion is that Libertaria (i.e. the -presumably- large aggregate of people who’ve contracted to operate under the nominal governmental agreement called by them “Libertaria”) would have trouble dealing with the proposed case in a socially equitable manner. He has not claimed that libertarianism must address the case, merely that he cannot foresee equitable action within Libertaria to deal with handicapped access.

Your answer seems to be that, while social ills do exist which societies of people may agree must be dealt with, such dealings are not within the allowed scope of the government of Liberalia.

8

Doggonnit!!! :o
Please replace word segment al with tar.
[sub]Thankyouverymuch.[/sub]

9

Years ago, I enjoyed watching Liberalia play the piano on television.:stuck_out_tongue:

10

Isn’t Liberalia the west African country bordered by the Ivory Coast, Guinea, and Sierra Leone? :stuck_out_tongue:

11

Actually, it’s the most popular soft drink in Paraguay. :wink:

12

And, ironically enough, liberalia.com is a libertarian website. (Nothing in there specifically dealing with your case study, erl, but here’s a dandy paper making the case against gov’t sponsored vocational training, which makes some points relevant to this OP.)

13

Xeno

Yes, that’s exactly my answer.

14

I think the phrase you’re looking for, eris, is “The Tyranny Of The Majority”: that is, in this case, minority concerns do not get addressed because it’s not economically beneficial to do so (e.g., handicapped access, de facto segregation in commerce). Libertaria does not seem to address those problems. Perhaps that’s simply a trade-off that libertarians, capitol L or not, are willing to make.

15

I’d imagine the White House, at least, was.

“…tarlowed scope of the government of Liberalia.”:confused:

16

<xeno quietly decides to refer to the OP’s titular state as “that place” from now on…>

17

I’m not a libertarian but it strikes me that Libertaria does not mean there wouldn’t be non-profits that focus on special interest groups. What the government wouldn’t do for the physically challenged would be handled by NGOs. I would imagine the individuals themselves, as well as their relatives and friends, would economically contribute to establishing funds for things like public bathrooms. Also, companies would still have the public pressure to accommodate the less fortunate. Building bathrooms for the handicapped would be considered good marketing. An image thing, essentially. I don’t believe donations to good causes are purely explained in the light of on tax incentives. So, at least, I don’t think such accommodations would be non-existent.

18

I don’t know, ethic, it doesn’t seem so obvious to me. Does anyone know what caused America to go the route of mandatory handicapped access to buildings (or when it happened in any country)?

Oh, I doubt they would be nonexistent. I am just skeptical that they would ever be there in such a way that would allow a handicapped person to be as fully integrated into society as possible, allowing them work, and so on.

19

ADA Homepage

Groups like this one have been around for decades, and were influential in lobbying for the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). This issue is quite useful, as erislover shows us, for illustrating both the potential and the limits of non-governmental actions for social change.

20

Well, it makes one wonder.

The lobbyists lobbied the government because the government opens itself to lobbys. In other words, the easiest way to get all businesses to cooperate at the same standard is just to legislate one in.

However, if the government didn’t pander to lobbyists, wouldn’t the would-be lobbyists take their cases to the businesses? There are many effective ways to get a business to do your bidding. Organized boycotts can be compelling. So can negative press. The only problem is, getting all businesses to achieve some sort of basic standard can take longer than getting a law passed in congress (which is saying a lot). However, on the flipside, often times independent groups can get more of what they need accomplished when they address businesses directly. When the government intervenes, businesses will often times find it in their best interests to only meet the minimum requirements the government sets forth. At the same time, any independent group who complains can be simply shown that the business “meets government standards” and has no obligation to go above and beyond the call of duty. It almost gives the business the right to say to the group “take it up with your congressman if you don’t like it.” And if the independent group raises a stink about the situation, they can be portrayed as little more than a bunch of whiners since the business clearly meets its requirements. Negative press can work both ways.