Libertarianism: What is it? [Title modified]

[septimus]

You didn’t fully answer my questions, except with tautologies. For example, I’d ask what Libertarians would do NOW about Bundy, not the situation in a Libertopia.

I’ll just address one of your remarks.

@msmith537

Don’t they grow rice in flooded paddies?

I’m surrounded by rice paddies where I live, but am no agricultural expert. At some stages, farmers want a few inches of water; some stages they want it more dry. What they don’t want is what they got three years ago: rice under a meter or two of water, with roads and towns shut down. “Don’t they grow rice in flooded paddies?” – was that a joke?

In a thread 2 years ago where I introduced major flood control as a debating point, “libertarians” differed on whether
[ul][li] Farmers were to blame; they should have moved to the mountains and grown coconuts a generation earlier.[/li][li] Farmers could band together locally and build small levees. (These people were obviously unfamiliar with the concept of major floods. Look at a satellite photo with many millions of acres under water and point to where a small local levee would have helped.)[/li][li] No problem! And no need for government action. Farmers can buy weather derivatives on Chicago Futures Markets and protect themselves from economic loss.[/li][/ul]

These suggestions are all laughable. Platitudes about “Freedom is good” or “Taxxes is theft” are also unworthy of attention if “libertarians” have only irrational comments about flood control or mandatory vaccinations.

[Human_Action]

@septimus

I have some specific questions.

This is the crux of the debate.

Many self-styled libertarians advocate free markets because they think they are best for society. Yet upthread we see
Question 1: If, hypothetically, it were established that higher regulation led to higher prosperity, would libertarians support that? Or continue to believe freedom is the ultimate end? (I realize different “libertarians” may have different answers – that’s the point.)

And don’t just say it’s mathematically impossible for regulations to have value; accept the hypothetical.

Some would and some wouldn’t, depending on the individual libertarian and the individual regulations in question.

For example, consider two different forms of credit card regulation. One is disclosure: the law mandates that a disclosure sheet be attached to each statement, detailing the rate, monthly payments broken down into interest and principal, time to payoff if the minimum payment were made, and so on. The lender can’t bury this information in a 30-page document, it must be front-and-center, and follow a standardized format for layout, font size, etc.

The other is a flat prohibition on credit card rates above a certain number.

As a libertarian, I’m much more amenable to disclosure rules than simply outlawing products and services that might be bad for their consumers.

@septimus

Question 2: Should the federal government be allowed to charge fees for the lands it owns?

Yes.

@septimus

Should it be allowed to own land?

Yes, but only for government activities, like military bases and such. Massive holdings of open land don’t qualify.

@septimus

Should it be allowed to sell the land, or must it give it away for free?

Either; though if it’s given away, it should be a lottery, not a handout to the politically connected.

@septimus

(Like it or not, Cliven Bundy has become the latest poster-child for Libertarianism.)

He shouldn’t be, he’s arguing for federalism, that the state of Nevada should control that land.

@septimus

Question 3: In a recent thread addressing the problem of unvaccinated children spreading measles, civil suits, when a particular contagious episode could be proved, were advocated rather than mandatory vaccinations. This certainly seems to be the “libertarian” approach.

But aren’t transfer payments (in a zero-sum game) after an adverse consequence inferior to preventing the bad outcome?

Yes, I think so, and I don’t know that it even can be proved that a particular person can be proved to be the source of another person’s illness. If it is possible, I might revise my opinion.

@septimus

In a thread from a few years ago I mentioned flood control; libertarians put forth the astounding proposal that the “solution” was for rice farmers to buy weather-related derivatives on the Chicago Board of Trade, to protect them from the bad consequences of flooding!!! Will anyone volunteer that that proposal is less outrageous than I think it is?

It doesn’t seem all that outrageous. Bailing out people who build on flood plains and get flooded creates a moral hazard, and that’s pretty outrageous too, it ensures an endless stream of flood bailouts, funded by the taxpayer.

[Human_Action]

@septimus

You didn’t fully answer my questions, except with tautologies. For example, I’d ask what Libertarians would do NOW about Bundy, not the situation in a Libertopia.

Enforce the court order, without anyone getting shot. Releasing the cattle to defuse the confrontation was a wise decision, better the court order go unenforced for a few more weeks than someone gets killed.

Work with the Western states about land reform.

[septimus]

@Human_Action

It doesn’t seem all that outrageous. Bailing out people who build on flood plains and get flooded creates a moral hazard, and that’s pretty outrageous too, it ensures an endless stream of flood bailouts, funded by the taxpayer.

I don’t want to hijack this thread and make it about rice farming, but rice is a very major part of Thailand’s economy, with more than 25 million acres of rice. To cast blame on the millions of rice farmers, doing what their grandparents and great-grandparents did, is an excellent example of the inane conclusions that many libertarians draw.

A central authority can seek to control (i.e. perform flood control on) a major river system. This is infeasible for individuals. The “solutions” libertarians come up with – e.g., stop growing rice altogether – to avoid government help are mindboggling.

In the previous thread, many libertarians didn’t seem to grasp that preventing flood has economic value to society in a way that allowing the flood but insuring losses does not. Or is this just another symptom of the libertarian creed: “Me, me, me! Let the public be damned!”

[Human_Action]

@septimus

I don’t want to hijack this thread and make it about rice farming, but rice is a very major part of Thailand’s economy, with more than 25 million acres of rice. To cast blame on the millions of rice farmers, doing what their grandparents and great-grandparents did, is an excellent example of the inane conclusions that many libertarians draw.

A central authority can seek to control (i.e. perform flood control on) a major river system. This is infeasible for individuals. The “solutions” libertarians come up with – e.g., stop growing rice altogether – to avoid government help are mindboggling.

In the previous thread, many libertarians didn’t seem to grasp that preventing flood has economic value to society in a way that allowing the flood but insuring losses does not.

I didn’t realize that you were referring to Thailand, with the reference to the Chicago Board of Trade. I was addressing the issue in a U.S. context, where flood-prone land is built on because of the perverse incentives of federal flood programs. It’d be better if the land just went undeveloped, the U.S. isn’t hurting for land, and there’s nothing that can only be done in these areas.

If rice production in Thailand can only be done in flood-prone areas, that’s a different matter, more akin to road building. I freely admit to knowing nothing about rice production in Thailand.

@septimus

Or is this just another symptom of the libertarian creed: “Me, me, me! Let the public be damned!”

Eh, that’s more the creed of crony capitalism, or those demanding subsidy.

[septimus]

Sam Stone has emphasized that economic freedoms lead to prosperity and that that is a good reason to support deregulation and enforcement of private property rights.

@Human_Action

If rice production in Thailand can only be done in flood-prone areas, that’s a different matter, more akin to road building.

[QUOTE=septimus]
Or is this just another symptom of the libertarian creed: “Me, me, me! Let the public be damned!”

Eh, that’s more the creed of crony capitalism, or those demanding subsidy.
[/QUOTE]

Both Mr. Stone and Mr. Action will stipulate that governments should exist and perhaps take on chores like building roads and reservoirs. But in this thread and others, libertarians have explicitly implied that Freedom and freedom only is the goal with any associated utility or disutility to the public economic interest irrelevant. None has specifically endorsed Sam Stone’s criterion.

I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “crony capitalism” but government is not necessary for that; J.P. Morgan and friends were certainly cronies. Rockefeller asked for subsidies; if “demanding subsidies” refers to governance driven by powerful vested interests, than we can both agree that oligarchy is bad.

But unlike libertarians, I understand that diminishing the roles of government and protecting public interest, and giving more power to existing property owners will effectively lead to a form of oligarchy.

[John_Mace]

@septimus

Both Mr. Stone and Mr. Action will stipulate that governments should exist and perhaps take on chores like building roads and reservoirs. But in this thread and others, libertarians have explicitly implied that Freedom and freedom only is the goal with any associated utility or disutility to the public economic interest irrelevant. None has specifically endorsed Sam Stone’s criterion.

Explicitly implied? Not sure how that works.

The answer to your confusion is very simple. Some of us, like Sam and HA and I, can speak about Libertarianism and what it means without actually being Libertarians ourselves. So yes, Libertarianism elevates freedom (let’s call it Liberty, hence the name) as an end to itself and not something to be compromised.

But most of us who call ourselves “small l libertarians” don’t ascribe to that notion. Rather we see the liberty <-----> security issue as a spectrum, and realize that the real discussion is where we situate ourselves on that spectrum. We’re not at the far end, but we’re a lot closer to that end than folks like you.

[septimus]

@John_Mace

But most of us who call ourselves “small l libertarians” don’t ascribe to that notion. Rather we see the liberty <-----> security issue as a spectrum, and realize that the real discussion is where we situate ourselves on that spectrum. We’re not at the far end, but we’re a lot closer to that end than folks like you.

I’m curious what security vs freedom issues I’ve taken a stand on, that make you “a lot closer to that end” than I? Your support for inns turning away blacks? Did Mr. Stone or Mr. Action take a stand on that?

[Human_Action]

@septimus

Sam Stone has emphasized that economic freedoms lead to prosperity and that that is a good reason to support deregulation and enforcement of private property rights.

It’s a nice feature, sure, that free markets lead to prosperity. There can be more than one reason to support something.

@septimus

Both Mr. Stone and Mr. Action…

Well, now I wish my user name was Mr. Action. Darn.

@septimus

…will stipulate that governments should exist and perhaps take on chores like building roads and reservoirs. But in this thread and others, libertarians have explicitly implied that Freedom and freedom only is the goal with any associated utility or disutility to the public economic interest irrelevant. None has specifically endorsed Sam Stone’s criterion.

Here’s a quick litmus test: does the government action make me appreciably less free? In the case of building bridges or reservoirs, the answer is “no”. If the action doesn’t make me less free, and has utility in itself, I’ll support it.

If it does make me less free, then there’s a higher burden on the utility side of the equation.

@septimus

I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “crony capitalism”…

Here ya go.

@septimus

…but government is not necessary for that; J.P. Morgan and friends were certainly cronies.

In the same sense that government intervention isn’t necessary for a monopoly to develop; it’s true, but much, much harder to achieve, and far less durable.

@septimus

Rockefeller asked for subsidies; if “demanding subsidies” refers to governance driven by powerful vested interests, than we can both agree that oligarchy is bad.

Absolutely.

@septimus

But unlike libertarians, I understand that diminishing the roles of government and protecting public interest, and giving more power to existing property owners will effectively lead to a form of oligarchy.

You believe that, sure. I see government intervention on behalf of the powerful as the driving force behind oligarchy, not the lack of intervention.

[John_Mace]

@septimus

I’m curious what security vs freedom issues I’ve taken a stand on, that make you “a lot closer to that end” than I? Your support for inns turning away blacks? Did Mr. Stone or Mr. Action take a stand on that?

I guess I “support” inns turning away blacks in the same sense that you “support” adultery. We both think the thing we “support” shouldn’t be against the law. I wouldn’t use the word that way, but if you want to, so be it. And yes, both of those folks agree with me on that issue. They both think the government should not make such behavior illegal, even if none of us would engage in that type of behavior ourselves.

However, if that’s the only issue on that spectrum that you think we disagree on, then I welcome you into the camp of the “small l libertarians”. Your coffee mug is in the mail!