Question for Resident Libertarians

[pervert]

@longhair75

next question: how would a libertarian society go about massive public works programs? examples: the interstate highway system, the brooklyn bridge, the erie canal, hoover dam ect.

By organizing in more voluntary ways. You do know that there was a highway system before the interstate was built, right? We had roads before governments started builing them. We don’t have many private roads anymore, but then a large competitor with the power to tax and no responsibility to return a profit will do that to a marketplace.

the parks system: grand canyon, yosemite ect.

Some of the best wildlife refuge areas are privately owned. Simply put, if enought people decide that it is important enough, any of the things we do now (along these lines) can be accomplished without the government.

my point being that it is maybe possible to declare an already industrialized society with an existing infrastructure a libertarian one, but IMHO it is unlikely that a libertarian society would be successful at building one from scratch.

I’m not so sure. Any such society (from scratch) would have to be pretty small. It seems far more likely that a small group would be able to declare themselves libertarian. While a larger society would seem to me to have much more political baggage to undo. It has been my experience that undoing political structures is much harder than creating them from scratch. I’m not sure that this is a general rule, though.

[pervert]

@Kimstu

I think the point here is that the libertarian economic scenario is indeed fine and dandy for a theoretical, ideally competitive free market, but in real life there just aren’t very many perfect free markets around.

I’m not at all sure that idyllicly free markets are necessary. I don’t think that the possiblity of collusion between a few market participants disproves this. Did I miss something from earlier in the thread?

Simple Econ 101 supply-and-demand transactions aren’t adequate to describe what goes on in an economic setup where some of the actors are big enough substantially to control the market, instead of all the actors being impersonally controlled by the market.

I’m not sure what market you are talking about, but I think you have to assume some things to get any actor which is large enough to control it. Either you have to assume a very small market in isolation, some sort of coercive power on the part of the actor, or an unimaginatively large actor. There have been many cases of companies or individuals trying to “corner” one market or another. They have rarely if ever succeeded. I can’t think of a single example of an actor controlling any substantial portion of the “market” as a whole without a liberal* use of force.

*Pardon the pun, Liberal

[pervert]

@Kluge

Examples include national defense and criminal investigation. Tell me, would the government continue to produce these public goods under your social vision, or do you envision alternatives?

I have heard arguments which propose systems of privatizing these things. I am not convinced they are practicle. There is an essential distinction to be made between the application of force and just about every other type of “good” or “service” one could think of. Specifically the fact that the justice system and national defence both require an application of force. In order to avoid such applications from being themselves coercion, there need to be rules for their use which I’m not sure are compatible with a “market” model for them.

[CaveMike]

Is there recourse if someone harms me or my property beyond what they are capable of compensating?

For example, my neighbor decides to start a nuclear waste disposal service in his backyard. He does not take the proper disposal precautions and some of the waste utterly destroys my property. I assume I can then take legal action against him in an attempt to recoup the value of my property. The legal proceedings find that he is completely at fault, but also reveal that he has no assets to repay me (apparently he was an awful business man and was only paid a six-pack of beer per drum of waste). What is my recourse here?

I realize that this situation occurs in our current systems as well, but I am interested in how it is handled in Libertopia.

[Liberal]

@longhair75

friend liberal, hello, my friend. always a pleasure to read your posts.

next question: how would a libertarian society go about massive public works programs? examples: the interstate highway system, the brooklyn bridge, the erie canal, hoover dam ect.

the parks system: grand canyon, yosemite ect.

my point being that it is maybe possible to declare an already industrialized society with an existing infrastructure a libertarian one, but IMHO it is unlikely that a libertarian society would be successful at building one from scratch.

Possibly. Then again, maybe not. The Interstate Highway System is a fine thing if you’re a guy driving along from Georgia to Indiana in your convertible on a fine autumn morning in 2004. But it was a bitch if you were a poor widow whose property was condemned by eminent domain in 1959 to build the off-ramp you’re using when you get there. The Brooklyn Bridge was built by the New York Bridge Company, Inc., whose shareholders realized handsome profits seven years after their investments. The Eerie Canal was built by (1) Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, Inc. from Albany to Lakes Seneca and Ontario; (2) Northern Inland Lock Navigation Company between the Hudson and Lake Champlain; and (3) Western Inland Navigation Company built the locks at Little Falls. Hoover Dam was made possible thanks to an individual named Joseph Monier, who invented reinforced concrete in 1849. My point being, of course, that there is no reason why great works cannot be motivated by the demands of people at large rather than by the demands of magistrates. And maybe if things can’t be done without taking property from old ladies or killing a hundred men or destroying whole communities, we’d be just as well off.

Stretching over 100 miles, the reservoir, Lake Mead, became the first National Recreation Area in the United States. Families could gather for boating, fishing, picnicking, and sunbathing. However, the new lake had once been to home to hundreds of 19th century settlers as well as ancient Native American civilizations. Once the waters of Lake Mead began to form behind Hoover Dam, former towns like Saint Thomas and Kaolin, and many archaeological sites were covered forever.

http://www.library.unlv.edu/early_las_vegas/hoover_dam/completed1.html

There is often as much tragedy as romance when faceless bureaucracies decide what is for the “common good”.

[Liberal]

@CaveMike

Is there recourse if someone harms me or my property beyond what they are capable of compensating?

For example, my neighbor decides to start a nuclear waste disposal service in his backyard. He does not take the proper disposal precautions and some of the waste utterly destroys my property. I assume I can then take legal action against him in an attempt to recoup the value of my property. The legal proceedings find that he is completely at fault, but also reveal that he has no assets to repay me (apparently he was an awful business man and was only paid a six-pack of beer per drum of waste). What is my recourse here?

I realize that this situation occurs in our current systems as well, but I am interested in how it is handled in Libertopia.

You get whatever property he has including his buildings, his land, and his life.

[Czarcasm]

@Liberal

You get whatever property he has including his buildings, his land, and his life.

Which still means that, instead of having two parcels of land that can be used productively, you have one. What can your libertarian society do to prevent the permanent destruction of valuable landspace?

[Liberal]

No more than your authoritarian one can — establish a rule of law the prohibits coercion. What do you advocate, that if a man damages your property, you take money from people who had nothing to do with it?

[Czarcasm]

Nope, but a regulatory agency empowered to investigate areas that might pose problems and stop problems before they get out of hand might lower the number of such incidents.

[Mapache]

Quote- ¨You get whatever property he has including his buildings, his land, and his life.¨

What? You can legally kill someone (or, in your Libertopia, enslave him- ¨Put him in prison and force him to work¨) because you accuse him of damaging your sacred Property?

Anyway, CaveMike´s question was ¨Is there recourse if someone harms me or my property beyond what they are capable of compensating?¨
which, as you often do, you ignored.

Most likely, the nuclear waste disposal actually belongs to the Ricchepigge Recycling Megacorp, based in Madagascar, which is a wholy owned subsidiary
of Clear Skies Limited, which is owned by three banks in Hong Kong, etc. etc.
and anyway there isn´t an SEC so you can´t find out who does own it, and besides they belong to a different Libertopia so they don´t have to pay any attention to your demands. And of course the owners, whoever they are, have hired a very heavily armed Private Security Force (read ¨Goon Squad¨) who aren´t going to let you onto their property in the first place so you can´t find any evidence to prove that the cause of your cats all glowing in the dark has anything to do with the piles of goop next door.

Or am I wrong?

[CaveMike]

@Liberal

You get whatever property he has including his buildings, his land, and his life.

By life, do you mean the ability to collect on future wages and assets? Or do you mean even more than that?

@Liberal

No more than your authoritarian one can ? establish a rule of law the prohibits coercion. What do you advocate, that if a man damages your property, you take money from people who had nothing to do with it?

It seems like the major differences between libertarian and authoritarian systems in this particular example is:
a) Whether my neighbor would have to covertly
b) The point in time at which I can take proceedings against my neighbor

In the libertarian system, as I understand it, I can not challenge my neighbor until he damages my property. At which point the burden of proof would be on me. This seems like it would minimize unnecessary litigation

In the authoritarian system (assuming one with laws restricting nuclear waste disposal), my neighbor would either:

1. Act openly and declare his property a nuclear disposal site. At which point the burden of proof would be on him to prove that he was in compliance with all of the restrictions. There would also be a public record of his plans before they were implemented.
2. Act covertly and dispose of waste in secret. At which point I could challenge him as soon as I discovered his plans, even if they had not yet damaged my property. The burden of proof would still be on me in civil proceedings. There might also be criminal proceedings by the government.

Am I representing both systems fairly, or did I miss some details?

[KidCharlemagne]

@brzrk

Sounds pretty reasonable.

I think I’m going to read Wealth of Nations.

Don’t bother. Read Henry Hazlitt’s “Economic in One Lesson.”

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517548232/qid=1093360525/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-9813723-3889700?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It’s a great book with the arguments for nearly libertarian positions on the big economic issues.

I just want to add that it’s difficult to judge libertarianism by the immediate effects it would have on our current economy. It would take some time for a previously regulated economy to adjust and libertarian policies would have to be slowly introduced over time. You also can’t look at libertarian policies in a vacuum because they rely on increased freedom in every other areas to find a reasonable equilibrium and are very non-linear in effect.

[Liberal]

@CaveMike

By life, do you mean the ability to collect on future wages and assets?

Yes. The principle is that, by his coercion, a man who has usurped the rights of others has waived his own.

Am I representing both systems fairly, or did I miss some details?

I think you got the gist of it except that there is no need to wait for actual damage to act in a libertarian context. If a man walks up to you and says, “Your money or your life,” it is tantamount to walking up to you with a knife. You don’t have to wait until you are spilling blood to defend yourself. Likewise, if your neighbor is producing pollution by the barrel, and his barrels are all leaking, then it is tantamount to him dangling it over your fence and threatening to drop it. You need demonstrate only that damage to your property is imminent.

[Leonard]

Regarding the earlier discussion of mega-corps and their tendency to drive all smaller competitors out of the market, is there any reason to think that corporations would command anywhere near the capital that they do now without the government enforcing the all important “limited liability,” or am I incorrect in assuming that there would be no “limited liability” in Libertopia?

[Liberal]

Your assumptions are correct. No corporate welfare. No special legislative favor for corporations. And no friggin’ limited liability.

[Kluge]

@KidCharlemagne

Don’t bother. Read Henry Hazlitt’s “Economic in One Lesson.”

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517548232/qid=1093360525/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-9813723-3889700?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It’s a great book with the arguments for nearly libertarian positions on the big economic issues.

True, but some general background in economics never hurt. Since Adam Smith is considered the first true economist, reading Wealth of Nations is a pretty good idea.

I also recommend “Principles of Economics” by Carl Menger. I must admit, however, that the language isn’t easy to bear.

Of course, the simplest way to get a good background in economics is to just take a course.[/hijack]

And Liberal, do you mind answering my questions? pervert gave a nice answer, but the more viewpoints the better.

[Liberal]

@Kluge

And Liberal, do you mind answering my questions? pervert gave a nice answer, but the more viewpoints the better.

I take it you mean this:

@Kluge

Examples include national defense and criminal investigation. Tell me, would the government continue to produce these public goods under your social vision, or do you envision alternatives?

Definitely. That is what libertarian government is all about — to ensure a context of peace and honesty for its citizens; i.e., to guarantee freedom from all sources of coercion.

[Kluge]

@Liberal

I take it you mean this:

@Kluge

Examples include national defense and criminal investigation. Tell me, would the government continue to produce these public goods under your social vision, or do you envision alternatives?

Correct, but I also had a question about the environment that I don’t believe has been answered. Allow me to repost it.

@Kluge

I’m also curious about what’s protecting the environment in Libertopia, and it’s a concern that has been expressed by others in this thread. My former professor gave a few examples, but I’m not quite satisfied. What’s your view on the matter?

Thanks.

[Kimstu]

Liberal: The point is that if there is always the freedom for entrepreneurs to compete, consumers themselves might decide that shoddy goods and surly service really aren’t what they’re looking for. So, there will always be a market for non-crap merchandise and service. But if there are thousands of potential entrepreneurs (as from Enterprises, Inc) and still no one is demanding anything better than being treated like hell, that’s pretty much a statement that what people want is to be treated like hell.

I’m not sure that theoretical “freedom for entrepreneurs to compete” always translates into viable competition. For example, most smokers would probably like a tobacco company to start providing significantly cheaper cigarettes and accepting lower profits as a result. But the cigarette producers seem to be better off maintaining approximate price parity with one another rather than getting into a price- and profit-cutting war.

Remember, it’s not actually necessary to give customers what they really want as long as they’re willing to put up with what you’re giving them. They can “demand” something else till they’re blue in the face, of course. But as long as the market is sufficiently far from a theoretically free market to make cooperation more profitable than competition, you don’t have to take their demands too seriously.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Hoo boy. As this is one of the topics ground into a fine powder around here, I suggest interest parties pay a visit to…

THE SDMB LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY

March 2000
Nonfiction: Why Libertarianism Won’t Work (Reason No. 5,472), by spoke-

July 2000
Historical Fiction: Sarah’s Gold, by Libertarian/Liberal

Oct. 2002
Short Story: Riboflavin the Murderer, by Libertarian/Liberal.

Nonfiction: Libertarianism and Coercion, by Riboflavin.

Humor: Blue-Skinned Libertarians, by Milt.

Nov. 2002
Nonfiction: Libertarians and the Electorate, a collaborative work.

Dec. 2002
My Foray into the Nuances of Libertarianism:
A play in three acts starring Dewey, Lib, and several other Dopers.
Act I – BBQ Pit
Act II – IMHO
Act III – BBQ Pit Revisited
Epilogue – GD

Short Story: The Freedom Paradox, by Blaron

Jan. 2003
Nogginhead the Inquisitive:
A one-act play with the usual cast.
Prequel
The Play

Nonfiction: Libertaria and the Environment, by Gadarene

Short Story: Culture Asks Some Questions, by culture.

Feb. 2003
Short Story: Libertarianism and the Children, by drachillix.

The Sucks Cycle:
Riboflavin Sucks, by Libertarian/Liberal.
Dewey Sucks, by Libertarian/Liberal.

Manifesto: Practical Libertarianism, by Jonathan Chance.

March 2003
Literary Criticism: Information as Coercion Exception, by Apos.
Survey: Unimplemented Political Ideas, by Florentine Pogen.

April 2003
Travelogue: Libertarians To Infiltrate Idaho, by Dewey Cheatem Undhow.

June 2003
Foriegn Affairs: Why No LP Outside the US?, by BrainGlutton.

July 2003
Comparative Studies: Anarchism vs. Libertarianism, by Panzerfaust.

May 2004
Panel Discussion: Why do Libertarians vote Republican?, by Polerius.
Collected Letters: Libertarianism: Sell Me, by tdn.

August 2004
Inquiry: Question for Resident Libertarians, by brzrk.