Whilst looking for something else, I fond these two bits on a Libertarian Party page and wondered about the libertarian stance once again. First:
So are they pleased with this or not? Should roads, bridges, and other parts of “the commons” be private property and if they are, are all the rights of private property inherent in such ownership?
The other item of interest on that page was this:
Now the LP and Cato are currently very quiet about legislation up to shield gun manufactrers, guns distributers, and the fast food industry from any future product related lawsuits, in advance of any knowledge of the merits of the particular case. But one would think they’d be vocal against them if they were consistent. Personally, I think that the courts are indeed an inefficient source of redress that sometimes impose unfair and disproprtionate outcomes based on emotional appeals. Yet giving a prejudged pass to entire industries without knowing the merits of any future particular case is an excessive response that imposes greatly upon individual rights in order to guard whole industries against possible future bad calls by the courts. OTOH, providing a narrow set of guidelines upon the courts, caps on non-economic damages say, and setting up alternative systems of arbitration, as has been proposed for medmal, is a lesser intervention that may be justified by a greater good achieved (if one believes as I do that such would be the result). What I’m asking here for is explanations of the Libertarian position here, not a defense of lawyers and a debate of the utility of unfettered lawsuits.
Keep in mind that the LP, especially in its bowels, is infested with statists. Most are constitutionalists rather than libertarians. And of course, their sheer incompetence is legendary. That said, it is generally the case that libertarian political theory does not consider the ends in its approach to ethics. It reasons that so long as ethical means are employed, the end itself will be ethical. One need no know which end, among the infinite many possible, will arise. This is frustrating to some non-libertarians because they reason that one end might be superior to another if, for example, it benefits more people. And for some in that set, there is a subset that holds that a given end, if attractive enough, justifies whatever means is necessary to achieve it. Upon rereading the articles now, you should be able to discern the application of the ethical principle of noncoercion as the means they would apply.
Libertarians split on the degree to which they want the commons privatized. Some go all the way and believe there should be almost no state - that our police, armed forces, and even courts should all be in private hands.
Others (myself included) believe that you need the state to provide some common resources, maintain economic stability, provide a common defense, and impartially adjudicate legal issues backed up with the threat of force. And even work to maintain a civil society, which is necessary for the market to function, by providing for catastrophic aid, aid to the poor and elderly, and perhaps even monetary protection against ruinous medical bills.
So for me, I’d look at it on a case-by-case basis. Factors to consider when privatizing roads are things like alternative access for those who do not wish to or can’t pay the toll. Also, in this particular case the issue is a bit muddy, because the roads already exist and were built with taxpayer funds. The roads belong to the people, so I’d intensely scrutinize any privatization deal to make sure it didn’t turn into a corporate handout. I assume the roads would be privatized but still publically regulated, probably including pricing regulations to prevent someone from buying up the only road out of Dodge and then quintupling the fare after the bill of sale is signed. That further clouds the issue because neither solution is a ‘pure’ Libertarian solution.
Is that really what the gun shield laws do? Protect them from ANY product-related lawsuits? Including ones in which, say, the gun exploded in the face of the user due to a product defect? Or does it only shield them from politically or financially motivated attack campaigns waged in the courts? I’ve got no problem protecting gun manufacturers from being sued by the family of a murdered person simply because their gun, functioning properly, was used in the crime. You can’t hold a company liable for the abuse of their product after the sale. It’s just not right. If I sell you an axe and you use it to go Lizzie Borden on your family, I’m simply not liable for damages. Gun manufacturers are no different. Likewise fast food companies being sued by people who buy and eat too much of their product. It’s simply ridiculous.
What’s really happening in these cases is that some people are attempting to effect social change through the courts. They can’t get the government ban guns outright, so they’re inventing silly liability claims and shotgunning them at the gun industry willy-nilly, hoping one will stick or that the ongoing legal bills will hurt the industry, driving up the price of guns and limiting their access. Likewise with these food lawsuits - right now it’s mostly just greedy people hoping to hit the lottery, but if enough public pressure builds against obesity, you’ll start to see legislation being proposed or advocacy groups launching class-action suits.
To me, this is no better than mob rule. It’s thuggery. Using the coercive power of the state to force your fellow citizens to behave in ways that you think are proper.
You can be consistent in principle and still differ in what you believe is the optimum outcome. For example, I might support some regulations simply because I’m a pragmatist and I believe that those regulations are necessary to prevent a situation that leads to even more. We may also differ on what we believe constitutes harm to others. For example, pollution. Some Libertarians are steadfastly opposed to any regulations on pollution at all, while others analyze the situation differently and believe pollution is a form of first harm, and therefore it is just to use the government to seek restitution or to prevent the harm.
Then there are our differences on ‘market failure’. One of the things that keeps me from becoming a pure Libertarian is that I believe there are honest-to-god market failures, or issues the market just can’t deal with effectively, and that moderates my position. Many Libertarians believe the same, but their definition of what constitutes a ‘market failure’ may be more strict than mine.
So we can start from the same basic principles, and wind up dividing sharply on policy. This is no different than what happens among Democrats and Republicans.
I liked something Tucker Carlson said the other night. A caller asked him if he was a Libertarian, and he said, “I’m not a Libertarian, but I am informed by the spirit of Libertarianism.” In other words, he approaches each issue from a Libertarian standpoint as the default, and believes that good outcomes are those that maximize Liberty. To get him to move from that position you have to convince him, but he’s willing to be convinced. I think that’s a pretty good place to be.
Thank you both for the explanations. Sam, I haven’t seen the bill, but it is described as “sweeping protection from civil suits” Sounds broad to me.
I agree with that Calson quote too, as a liberal. I greatly respect the pragmatic libertarian perspective. And have little respect for the libertarian dogmatists.
Sam, I would think that a libertarian who holds that the market solves all problems or that it can’t fail is an idiot. He would have to have fallen into the trap of thinking that libertarianism is a problem solving philosophy. It is important to remember that a libertarian economy need not be capitalistic at all.
A commune, in which everyone voluntarily shares resources could be libertarian. What would make it non-liibertarian is if it was run by a state and people were punished for opting out. But as long as people are free to leave if they wish, then it’s operating under the principle of non-coercion.
A commune is not an alternative to the market. The only reason a commune works is because it is composed of a tiny population of like-minded people working towards the same goal. Try running an entire country as a commune and see how well it works.
Economics is the study of scarcity, and how scarce resources are allocated amongst competing needs. If there is either no scarcity or no competing need, the point is moot.
I was advocating that approach, but just pointing that people can opt for it. There is no reason that scarce resources cannot be allocated equally. That may not be the best way to allocate them, but it is a way.
The point is that volunteers may allow that resources be distributed entirely by government whim. Libertarianism is not an economic philosophy, but a political one. Its essence is volunteerism.
