Air.
As I said in the baseline problem thread, the obstacle that the 18-year-old faces is the existing distribution of wealth. To wit, she ain’t got any. And I don’t care how savvy you are–there’re a finite number of ideas and enterprises on which money can be made (and especially, on which a living can be made). Especially when you’re starting from scratch.
And now I’m caught up. 
As a “small l” libertarian, I would like to throw out a couple of ideas/hypothetical solutions to a couple of the problems presented in this thread:
A specific solution to the “lighthouse problem”: In a libertarian society, there would be no government provided, tax supported Coast Guard. Since the entity now known as the Coast Guard provides a valuable service, i.e. the public safety function of rendering aid to troubled boaters, someone will find a way to provide this service profitably.
I would envision this service being provided based on subscription by users (i.e. those boaters using a certain area of the coastal waters). If you don’t subscribe to the service, you would either have no right to expect rescue, or you would be billed for the rescue (on a cost plus basis), just as you are billed for an ambulance ride to the hospital (although this is usually a fee not tied to the actual cost in a gov’t operated ambulance).
It would be in the best interest of the operators of this coastal guard service to reduce the actual need for providing rescues (in order to keep their costs down), therefore they would be wise to install aids-to-navigation, such as channel markers, lighthouses, etc.
Devolution of the Commons: Ownership of what is now the commons, such as all those water covered lands, there would need to be some method of distributing ownership at the time of devolution of the current state. Using the USA as a hypothetical example in the most idealistic sense, currently there are ~280 million people each owning 1/~280MM share in the public property of the USA. When the current state is dissolved, each person would be given X units of value to be used to purchase any public asset at auction. These shares could be transferrable, so that they could be sold or combined in a cooperative association, or they could be used individually to purchase assets.
As far as ownership of great swaths of open ocean (past the territorial waters limit and the 200 mile economic exclusion zones)- those are currently owned by no state and would remain that way. All current obligations of the current regime would pass to the succeeding regime- that’s the way it (rightfully) has always been.
Nice post, Scooby. I was going to respond, but then I realized I already said most of what I’d say in my “profit motive” post on page two. I’d be interested in your thoughts on that.
I’ll give it a shot coming from my own perspective- that of a person not wanting the COMPLETE devolution of the current state of the USA (what would we do with the nukes/other WoMD?, how would we provide for defense of the national borders from outside threat?).
I would say that in a workable libertarian society, we would still require some sort of gov’t/ framework to enforce rights. There are a few things that would need to remain- our common defense i.e. army/air force to defend borders, beyond them only in defensive wars (such as the current war on terror[sup]TM[/sup] IMO, but not Vietnam), a court system (much bigger to adjudicate violations of the rights of others), and a little muscle to enforce the rulings of the courts. One part of the military that is IMO our most valuable currently, but would in the ideal world be either an international function or done by the US on a contract basis (maybe to help finance the other gov’t functions) to the users of the seas is the Navy (incl. the Marines) to defend the open/non-sovereign seas from piracy and other coercive action.
All of the things you listed (lighthouses, sewer systems, libraries, parks, courthouses, garbage collection, law enforcement, schools, roads, firefighters), can be provided privately:
[ul][li]lighthouses- see my previous post[/li][li]sewer systems (and other pollution prevention)- user fees, with the motivation being that contamination of someone’s water, air or land would be a liability- they would be able to sue you for damages[/li][li]libraries- they aren’t free now (paid for by taxes), and they wouldn’t be in a libertarian society. The difference would be that you would pay for use (and know exactly what they cost)[/li][li]parks- see libraries[/li][li]courthouses (and the associated court system and muscle to enforce decisions)- paid for by users of the courts, loser pays[/li][li]garbage collection- see libraries and sewer systems- you’ve got trash to get rid of, and if it pollutes your neighbors land, he’ll sue you[/li][li]law enforcement- taking consensual “crimes” out of the picture cuts the costs, non-consensual crimes are a private cause of action with investigative functions on a subscription basis or per-case basis[/li][li]schools- privatized, with costs borne by the users or other interested parties (potential employers, charitable individuals/groups, etc.)[/li][li]roads- paid for by users of the roads[/li][li]firefighters- like other protective services, paid for on a subscription basis, or billed after the fact for non-subscribers[/ul][/li]This wouldn’t be a drastic change from status quo- everything that is now provided by the government is currently paid for by its citizens. What would be different is the introduction of competition (which would cause greater inefficiencies in the short term, but be more efficient in the long term), reduction of corruption brought on by the gov’t’s monopoly on certain services, and accountability- everyone would know the cost of each and every service that the gov’t currently provides for “free”.
[slight hijack]One major concern that I would have is the dynasty problem. My proposed solution (and this is just throwing something at the wall to see what sticks) would be a confiscatory estate tax, with a one generation exemption. Above a certain small limit (definitely less than US$1MM in 2002 money), assets would go into trusts for the benefit of the first generation of survivors (children, grandchildren that are of deceased children, etc.) and/or other beneficiaries and be confiscated upon death of the beneficiary. The proceeds of the confiscated estates would be distributed in equal part to all citizens. Every year, everyone gets a share of the accumulated wealth of dead folks. If they don’t put it to productive use, they have no one to blame but themselves.
There are seperate terms for the divides in libertarianism. Although I’m a little uncomfortable labelling others, I’d say that Hazel is a minarchist (a minimal statist) and Libertarian is an Anarcho-capitalist.
Minarchy : http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
Anarcho-capitalism : http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
You appear to misunderstand the assertion. You’re treating it like a first order logic assertion when in fact it is a deontic logic assertion.
If we call the truthbearer p, then the assertion is Op.
What, you mean you’ve never been asked how your philosophy would handle sentient giant squids who arise from the ocean floor and produce title to the property that was stolen from them millions of years ago? My goodness, you’ve been treated with kid gloves! 
Mighty Maximino wrote:
It’s my pleasure.
They go through the arbiter to whom they have given voluntary and volitional consent.
You misunderstand what is being consented to. In libertarianism, “to govern” means “to protect”. You are consenting to be governed in the sense that your rights and property are protected from coercion. Your governor is not a ruler over you; he is your proxy.
Your sole guarantee is to be free from coercion. Your “stuff” and your rights are synonymous. No one may go through your stuff without your express consent.
However, stuff that you’ve stolen or produced through coercion does not belong to you. It is not your property, and you therefore have no rights with respect to it.
If you have consented to be governed, then you have consented to abritration. If you fail to allow a charge of coercion to be investigated, you stand in breach. And breach is itself a coercion (as a form of fraud — a misrepresentation of your intentions when you said you gave consent).
Certainly.
I realize that it is a radically different way of thinking, but in order to understand, you must orient your mind toward thinking from the point of view of the individual, not the government. It is you, and not it, who is the rights bearing entity.
If you believe that your government has exercised force against you without cause, then you believe that your government has initiated force, since you believe that there was no initial force from you to which the government could respond. Responsive force is not coercive, but initial force is.
You may therefore charge your arbiter with coercion. If he is found guilty, then you are absolved.
I know precious little about the processes of tyrannical law; those are known only to the cabal that proscribes, enforces, and interprets it. So, I’m not even sure how case law or binding precendent applies.
But law is a subset of ethics, and one implentation of law need not be a definitive implementation. So while one implentation might operate from proscription, there is no reason why another might not operate from principle.
The principle is unchanging and, I suppose, serves as an entire case law and binding precedent of its own. All that an arbiter need determine is whether an accused person has initiated force or fraud. He uses the Noncoercion Principle as the context in which to weigh whatever evidence is presented.
Acceptance of a bribe is a breach, representing bad faith of promise like any other fraud.
Could you rephrase that without a passive voice construction? When you say that so-and-so is “being forced”, forced by whom and how?
It is a false dichotomy to state that there is statism, and then libertarianism is all else. To quote from your source:
A priori no-government is antithetical to a principle in which a man may give consent to be governed.
In libertarianism, parenting is recognized as a contractual obligation of a special kind.
Most contracts are binary, involving the consent of two rights bearing entities. But because children are unable to give meaningful consent, their very existence is the result of a coercive act. The contract between parent and child, therefore, is unary.
However, God or nature has itself already mitigated your coercion by imbuing your child with certain rights and property upon its birth — specifically, its life, its mind, and its body. Your consent to be governed is your child’s consent by proxy, since the only party to the contract that is binded is you.
In libertarianism, governing is not a coercion, and therefore differs from a practice, such as abuse, that is a coercion. Your child represents, not your property, but your obligation. As the consenting party to the unary contract, you are obligated to defend the rights of your child. Whatever defense you are exercising for yourself, you must exercise for him as well. If you are being protected by a government, then so is he.
And hello Miami. I think the ships will see it.
That’s the problem with the whole what-if business. What if my grandmother had balls? I guess she’d be my grandfather.
When you posit that this or that might happen, then you introduce an infinite number of unintended consequences that might or might not apply. And if you get to invoke one, then I get to invoke another. I don’t see what’s unfair in that.
If a sea-faring company needs a lighthouse, it is reasonable that they will purchase land and build one. What? Other ships can see it, too? Maybe so. But do you turn off your porchlight just so your neighbors’ visitors won’t have benefit of using it to get their own bearings?
There are certain business decisions that I can make such that I can assure that they will benefit only my company. There are others that, by their very nature, might be of general benefit while benefitting me as well. They are decisions that are no less wise for that alone.
As I already said, there are many, many ways to make your lighthouse profitable, even to make it identifiable with your company and no other.
Imagine an advertising campaign for Czarcasm Shipping. Wide pan of the sea at night. A large ship comes into view. Close-up to the vessel’s identification as a Coldfire Shipping ship. Close-up to the Coldfire Shipping’s captain squinting at a light ahead. “Ahoy!” cries the captain. “Thar she blows!” He lights a cigar with a silver lighter. Two lens flairs, one from the lighter and one from the lighthouse, arch across the night sky, and merge, lighting up the sea with “Czarcasm Shipping” emblazoned like a sunrise. The captain draws on his cigar and whispers, “Thank God for Czarcasm Shipping!”
When you present your hypotheticals, you operate on the premise that other men cannot think, that what you imagine is the only possible potential reality, that others will not act in their own self-interest. and that they have not already anticipated the same concern that you have anticipated. But in fact, according to Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order, men will, given freedom, do what they need to do.
Gadarene wrote:
Dewey asked whether a poor man who could not afford to hire a government would be at the mercy of criminals. I was pointing out that more than that single presumption would be necessary: he must be both a man who cannot afford to hire a government and a man who cannot defend himself. (That’s what ethical governments do — defend people against aggression.)
That said, it doesn’t cost very much to hire an excellent defense. Given the United States’ 2003 defense budget request of $369 billion, and a population (as of this hour) of 288,753,435, the cost of defense from the entire US armed might is $1,277.91 a year for every citizen, or about $3.50 a day.
Withdraw the forces that occupy land in more than half the nations on earth; end the policy of policing the entire world; eliminate the bloat and fat of defense’s bureaucracy and waste — just do ordinary due diligence on the entire defense behemoth, and I’ll bet you could chop that $3.50 a day significantly.
To all:
My apologies, but I have to take a morning break to assist a friend. Please don’t think I’m ignoring anyone or that I’ve given up the debate. Thanks.
This leads to a couple of interesting (to me, at least ) questions:
What if I refuse to give consent to any arbiter or we can’t agree on an arbiter?
Scenario #1
I’m accused of robbing the houses of 17 grandmothers. There’s no proof, but there’s circumstantial evidence. The 17 grandmothers choose “Arbiters R Us” to represent them. I refuse, as I’m offended that anyone would even consider that I could do such a dreadful thing. I point blank refuse any arbitration and refuse to give consent for any arbitration as it would show that I take these outrageous accusations seriously. Under no circumsstances will I give consent to go before arbitration.
Scenario #2
I’m accused of robbing the houses of 17 grandmothers. There’s no proof, but there’s circumstantial evidence. The 17 grandmothers choose “Arbiters R Us” to represent them. I refuse, as I firmly believe that “Arbiters R Us” is a bunch of unethical muttonheads who are more advocates and showmen than impartial arbiters. I refuse to participate in a media circus. I insist on “Justice is Blind, Inc”. The 17 grandmothers refuse as one of them crunched some numbers and found that “Justice Is Blind, Inc” found for the defendant 50.2% of the time, a clear case of bias. I refuse to budge: so do the grandmothers. Neither of us will consider another arbitration firm.
In both cases, what happens? Do I go free? Do the grandmothers get their day in court?
Fenris
Libertarian, you avoided the question I actually posted completely. The imaginary sea-faring company cannot build a lighthouse on the best land available if some other business or person has already bought the land for other purpose. The trouble with Libertaria is that all land is first-come first-served, and the people with the most money to start out with, not the people who can best use the land, will always be first-come. The prime forests in our national parks will go to those who can buy them first-lumberers, not conservancy groups. The prime flatlands will go to those with the greatest cash reserve who can also guarantee the banks they may need to borrow from the best return on their money-the real estate developers, not the farmers.
The problem with Libertaria is that it is run on the proposition that businesses and people will always be looking for the long term profit. The two problems with this are pretty obvious.
- Business in this country has usually been run for the short term benefit of the stockholder, long term goals be damned.
- Except for a very few excentric billionaires, when the great Libertaria Land Grab happens, it is the businesses with the most money who will be able to buy the most, making them even bigger and more powerful. Remember, in Libertaria, property is everything, and the businesses with the most property will be able to shape Libertaria to their heart’s content.
Thanks, Lib. I’m still going through your answers in my mind, but I’d like to ask another question about this, to understand your position better:
How can you breach a contract to someone you have no duty towards? I will propose a hypothetical.
Suppose Xavier is found shot to death in his home. He has a valid contract with Libertaria North, which includes police fees (which he’s paid) and an “avenge death” clause. The LNPD finds a fingerprint and a shell casing. They run the print through their files, because all LN members consent to this when they join. No matches. After a little more investigation the LNPD concludes that the likely suspects (but not the only possibilities) are Alex, Bob, and Chuck, who are members of Libertarias West, South, and East respectively. Alex, Bob, and Chuck all tell the LNPD to get bent when asked to consent to the investigation.
How can Alex, Bob and Chuck be in breach to LN, when they’ve never made any agreement with LN? What can the LNPD do at this point to avoid being in breach of their duties to Xavier’s widow?
**Libertarian/b], you didn’t answer my question. Or maybe you did, and you just didn’t answer the question that I asked. Anyway, I’ll try again.
Bob The Child Pornographer (BCP) does not give his consent to be governed by anyone. He has 4 children. He forces his kids to pose for child porn. He then goes to New York and sells the pictures to those who have consented to be governed/contracted the protection of the Libertaria of New York (LNY).
How does LNY react to BCP’s activities? How does LNY react to those buying BCP’s child porn?
when I said “that I asked” I meant, “that I wanted to ask”.