Thanks for your prompt reply. I don’t mean to overstress your endurance! Keeping up with these threads is sure tough sometimes. Perhaps a new thread? But I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this because I am wildly curious about how to approach this problem.
No, I’m not asking if Libertaria has jurisdiction over FormerColonia. I’m assuming both exist in a global capitalist economy, and Libertaria imports some of the goods its citizens use. The government of FormerColonia still has jurisdiction, technically, but since it is very poor it is open to influences by Libertaria’s markets. Once it (Lib’a) has this influence, I believe it has some responsibility for its actions. I’ll try to rephrase the question:
If FormerColonia’s water resources are devoted (in part) to producing goods for Libertarians (who are then free to use their own water resources for their own purposes), aren’t Libertarians somehow responsible for water shortages in FormerColonia?
Or, the manufacture of Product X results in emission of toxic waste, and I want to own Product X but not have the toxic waste in my own water supply. So I buy one that was manufactured somewhere else, so someone else’s water supply gets contaminated.
It was not snide. It is simply my opinion, and the result of a lack of any detailed studies explaining how and why the very little arsenic in the water supply is dangerous. Though it might remotely be a contributing factor in some things, there is no real known deleterious effect of the small quantities present- which, if I recall correctly, are often and usually less than the federally mandated maximum.
Most importantly, it isn’t that the standards are bad, but rather that they may not be particularly good.
Well, that seems to be the entire point of Libertaria. It doesn’t concern itself with things like distributive justice, or social welfare, or the idea of the “public good”. As far as I can see from reading the threads, Libertaria doesn’t seem to believe that the “public good” or “society” exists…just a group of individuals who may have contractual relationships.
And if you start with the idea that all rights derive from property, which, as I understand it, both Libertarian and Libertaria do, the more property you have, the more rights you have, including the right to check your drinking water for pollution.
What about a situation in which there are multiple pollution sources, each of which only contributes a tiny bit of pollution, but the cumulative effects have the potential to cause harm?
Or a situation in which the pollution isn’t apparent (eg the levels aren’t measurable by current technology, or the harm of the pollutant isn’t yet known) until the producers of the pollutant are packed up and gone?
An interesting link about an old arsenic mine in Yellowknife. The question: Assuming it’s not a good idea to leave a bunch of arsenic underground indefinitely (what if it leaks into the groundwater?), who pays for the cleanup?
And Lib, sorry about the multiplicity! Bur I believe these questions are related, and critical to my understanding of Libertarianism’s mechanisms for responsibility.
Well stated, Captain Amazing. But I disagree that libertarians don’t believe in the concept of public good. Rather, I think, Libertaria considers the “public good” to be neither the responsibility of any single individual to uphold, nor the right of any single entity to determine on behalf of all individuals. This is the root of the philosophical differences between libertarianism and liberalism.
What do you mean? We found out that it was harmful, and redressed the harm by 1) establishing blanket asbestos standards to prevent future harm and 2) allowing people to sue en masse for their injuries. Lib’s vision would remove those standards and allow pollution to continue unless and until physical harm was manifested (and causation proven). Because many toxic chemicals and other nasty substances have long latency periods, this sort of exclusively ex post remediation is akin to closing the barn door after the toxic cow has wandered off.
And if you respond by saying that because we already know the harm that asbestos poses, any future Libertaria will proscribe asbestos by dint of market forces (businesses who use asbestos will be shunned) and establish, de facto, easy zero-risk asbestos standards during arbitration…well, it doesn’t have to be asbestos. In fact, it won’t be asbestos. It’ll be asbestess, the as-yet underresearched toxin that is dangerous at an uncertain non-zero level, the physical effects of which manifest themselves only after years and years. I guarantee you that we’re using several asbestesses as we speak.
I said:
erl said:
Not necessarily. I’m assuming that in Libertaria, even if asbestos is proven to be deadly at any level, the government can’t then order other asbestos producers (the ones that didn’t cause the specific harm arbitrated) to forego their production of asbestos until it’s been demonstrated that injury has resulted from each and every one of these other producers. I could be wrong here.
In which case, take arsenic (or rather, don’t–it could kill ya)–let’s say that an arsenic level of 20 parts per billion (ppb) has a 50 percent chance of giving someone cancer five years from now if they ingest it for a month, while a level of 10 ppb results in a 15 percent risk. Let’s also say that there are ten places in the country where a municipality’s arsenic level is 20 ppb or higher. In Happytown, someone is injured, allegedly by the arsenic level, and takes the matter to arbitration. The arbiter finds proximate cause; the scientific evidence she relies upon accurately states the risk inherent in both 20 ppb and 10 ppb. Two questions: Does this finding now mean that the other nine areas that exceed 20 ppb need to change their arsenic levels, even though no injuries have yet manifested themselves in those municipalities? Does this finding now mean that places with 10 ppb in their drinking water will be forced to change in the absence of a specific suit against them?
It seems to me–and I’m open to being corrected–that Libertaria minimizes coercion by only foreclosing and punishing the specific wrongdoer in a specific arbitration action, leaving it for injured people to bring separate suits against other wrongdoers to achieve ex post remedies, even if the nature of the wrong done and the nature of the injuries are identical to the case already arbitrated. Lib’s posts in the other thread that a suit and countersuit between two parties would result in two separate trials in two separate arbitrations under two different sets of law particularly leads me to this conclusion.
Right, but this glosses over the very problem I raised: how did we find out it was harmful, and did we do so before anyone contracted a chronic illness from it?
Telling comment, I think, when viewed in the proper light.
Well, let’s just suppose that asbestos isn’t outlawed. Now, what do you do when checking into buying a new home? The point in Libertaria is to have economic pressures build against asbestos users, without ever making a law for it. The state of California has determined that cigarette smoke can cause cancer… but do you, as a consumer, wait for your state to figure it out when judging the status of tobacco?
You’re right: that is all Libertaria does. Now, what do the citizens of Libertaria do?
From people like Gad, it’s the same questions wearing different pantyhose over and over and over again. She wants every piddly, rhetorical, absurd, and ill-conceived question answered to her personal satisfaction (meaning agreement with her) or else she cries “evasion!”. And even when she can’t possibly contrive an accusation of evasion, she will type up a barrage of rehashed questions and expect me to take all day dealing with her. I’m tired of it.
I do, however, welcome questions from you and other sincere people, and will do my best to answer them. But I would appeal to you to try to think them through first for yourself. The Principle of Noncoercion is quite simple, and easy to apply.
Before you do, I should advise you that the Libertarian government does not control imports in the sense that you’re likely used to. It regulates coercion (initial force or fraud) only, and nothing more.
Diplomacy, trade, and the like are conducted by private citizens as they feel the need or desire.
I’m still not sure that I have this straight. Remember that we’re talking about decisions by individuals here, not governments. If FormerColonians want to use their water resources for themselves, Libertaria cannot force them to do otherwise.
But if they contaminated only their own water supply — and of their own free will to boot — why are you concerned about it?
Depends on who you are. If you’re the buyer of Product X, then shrug your shoulders and go on. If you’re the seller of Product X, then decide whether you made a good or bad decision and adjust accordingly if necessary.
Not fair, Lib. The pursuit of public good concepts is neither piddly nor rhetorical, and Gad’s OP is neither absurd nor ill-conceived. For me, the question of environmental standards is illustrative of the spectacular deal-buster inherent to libertarian philosophy; the denial of “society” and the abbrogation of social responsibility from government.
erl, I could’ve sworn I was treated once upon a libertarian thread to a long passage (or cite thereto) from von Mises deriding the very concept of “society” as a fuzzy headed concept with no real existence. -This by way of explaining to me the libertarian view of humanity.
Well, how could I complete a day without misassigning someone’s sex.
But I’ve answered Gad’s questions. I just can’t afford to waste my time answering them again and again and again. You know that libertarianism does not make any pretense at solving people’s problems, but merely gives them the freest possible context to solve them themselves. She, or rather he, knows that, too.
Besides, it’s not like Liberalia has any advantage over Libertaria in that regard. It has been shown by Nobel Laureate economists that unintended consequences are likely to arise whenever economies are centrally planned. And as we can see every day, they do. While one problem might (or might not) be solved, others spring up from the woodwork — problems that no one thought of while planning.
I could open a thread with the same sort of questions about Liberalia, but I respect you too much to pin you down and occupy you with such nonsense. Other than that, I really don’t have anything further to say about it.
Except, on preview, what Eris said.
And on further preview, whoever linked you to Mises didn’t understand his concept of society very well. He talks about societies extensively, particularly in Chapter VIII of Human Action, titled “Human Society”.
You may still be missing my point (but I can’t really tell any more) so I’ll phrase the question another way, and please correct me if my assumptions about Libertarianism are wrong.
In Libertaria, all rights derive from property, right? Citizens of Lib’a thus have the right (as I have described, above) to pollute someone else’s backyard, who is not in Libertaria and thus is not subject to the same rules. The reason they (‘they’: the government OR the people of FormerColonia, who have widely differing interests) accept the pollution from Lib’a is because they are economically subservient to Lib’a (for many historical reasons we shant get into here). So … does Libertarianism permit you to pollute someone else’s environment in this way? Or, does it have any mechanisms to prevent it, other than relying on enlightened citizens to not purchase products that pollute someone else’s environment?
The only sense in which Lib’a ‘controls’ imports in this way is to permit them, which I believe it does.
Libertarians, by their consumer choices, can use their own water AND FormerColonia’s water for their own purposes, simply because they have the power to buy Product X.
And I have to take issue with
Firstly, it was not of ‘their own free will’. The people who live beside the river filled with mercury have not made the choice in any way, shape or form. Their government, possibly. The company that owns the plant, possibly. But not them.
Secondly, why am I concerned about it? Because they are humans too, and don’t deserve to live beside a river filled with mercury. I hope I am not misinterpreting your comment to mean that Libertaria and Libertarians don’t care about anyone who’s not Libertarian; if so, I would have to reject it on that basis alone.
And this is true with the subject in question. What is society? It is the collection of people living under etc blah blah. But what is rejected is thinking that “there is something that is best for society”. What is rejected is thinking that society is some sort of quantifiable entity that the government can listen to and address. You see what I mean there?
Only if the person who owns the backyard extends the right. A Libertarian who pollutes property against someone’s will is a usurper, a tyrant, and by initiating force will waive the protection of his own government because when the property owner responds to the pollution, his force will not be coercive but responsive. Libertaria guarantees freedom from initial force only.
If I still have not understood your question, I apologize. When you are looking from one reference frame and I am looking from another, I hope you can understand how interpretations can be skewed.
Again, the only sense in which Libertaria controls imports is to suppress coercion. It does not “permit” anything. People acquire permissions by economic transactions (economic in the broad, Austrian sense).
Are you saying that all the Libertarians are wealthy and all the FormerColonian’s are poor? Or something like that? I don’t see what you’re getting it.
If trade and commerce are free of coercion and fraud, why is everyone in FormerColonia poor?
Surely you don’t mean in Libertaria. But if you mean in FormerColonia, I ask you again whether you expect Libertaria’s government to presume authority over FormerColonians.
You aren’t used to thinking of a people separate from their government.
Surely, you are not alone in your concern for the poor and oppressed. You may form as large and influential a group of like-minded people as you wish who will work to help alleviate the suffering of others.
smiling bandit
Sorry about the “snide”. I shouldn’t have used that adjective.
I think getting into the details of the case for/against arsenic restrictions would be too much of a hijack, but I think th equestion of “what level of demonstration is sufficient for an environmental concern” is pertinent. Using arsenic, asbestos, or any hypothetical environmental hazard, what standard of “scientific proof” would you demand before either public policy or a “Libertarian arbitrator” should be compelled to actin.
Lib
One thing I would like cleared up. I am fairly certain that in :ebertaria each person contracts with his arbitrator of choice, whose “enforcement” powers are pretty literally that: how much force can he bring to bear. But you also say that the only role of government in Libertaria is to prevent coercion. Now, if initiating force is a form of coersion, and if dumping nuclear waste into my water table is an initiation of force (can we agree on that?), then why would I need ot take such a matter to a private arbitrator? Isn’t it the responsibility of teh government to protect the citizens from the initial use of force?
Also, it’s a bit of a hijack so address it or not as you please, but in regards to:
Absolutely correct. Of course, not planning an economy is guaranteed to give birth to unintended consequences, so the question really becomes one of: are the unintended consequences of X centrally planned economy more desirable than the consequences of an unplanned economy.
Lib: Not to try to swamp you with posts to address, but cowgirl’s post sparked a coupla questions of mine (which may be redundant with the questions already asked, or too off-topic, in which case I apologize in advance), namely:
Would the government of Libertaria address coercion by proxy (e.g. if a private citizen of Dystopia were coercing citizens of Dystopia, then would it be legal in Libertaria for Libertarians to give military/economic aide to the Dystopian in question in order to assist him in his coercion)? If so, then how would this be accomplished? If not, then wouldn’t the Libertarians share some of the Dystopian’s responsibility since by proxy they deprived others of their natural rights?
In a similar vein, would the government of Libertaria address remote coercion (e.g. an actual citizen of Libertaria travelled to Dystopia and took part in the coercion of its citizens, and then travelled back to Libertaria)?
