Setting Environmental Standards in Libertaria

Well, Lib, I don’t really understand why you are making my point for me, but Single Dad’s post was exactly what I referred to in my post on the other thread. What I said was (I won’t repeat myself exactly because I understand that the mods frown on reposting) that when faced with a reasonable objection, which in SD’s post was that under certain circumstances, such as in an isolated desert town, whoever controls a scarce and vital resource, such as water, can end up controlling everything, instead of making an attempt to reply to the objection, you came up with a strawman who owns all the water in the world, and have been sneering ever since at the foolishness of your strawman.

You have done the same with the donut question, (what prevents an "entrepreneur " who wants land that I don’t want to sell from buying the access to my property and then refusing my use of the access until I sell out at whatever price he offers?); with questions about who decides what discipline is proper for children- (does society have in interest in preventing parents who believe in Biblical standards of childraising from sending their children to school covered in what the Bible calls “stripes”?) and with a host of other questions, which if you insist I will look up and enumerate.

As to whether you have heard “the one about the man who owns all the water in the world” somewhere outside the SDMB, I have no opinion, and I expressed no opinion. In the other thread, you used that exact phrase in a manner that seemed obviously refering to the SDMB, which is why I called you on it.

Now you’re doing it again. Sake Samurai’s post offers an important objection to your brand of Libertarianism, and “Huge, powerful private private monopolies WILL control every …utility” does not equal “the one about the man who owns all the water in the world.” I happen to agree with SS, and if you disagree then argue against his post, not against your own strawman.

I did not insult you personally, and if you want to call me a liar kindly take it to the Pit. I did say that you continually use strawman arguments. That means that you attribute a position to your opponent that they don’t hold. Claiming that someone says something that they didn’t say is a false statement. A false statement
is, in essence, a lie. We can call it sophistry instead of “in essence, a lie” if that makes you feel better.

And I still would like to know why you feel that sophistry is necessary to defend Libertarianism.

I’ve seen the “Mr. Mean Man owns all the water” (or Two Mr. Mean Men as in Single Dad’s case) scenarios almost from day one. I’ve also seen plenty of people like you who crash a debate with the rhetorical equivalent of bug-eyed arm-flailing and accuse me of calling up strawmen. And I used to give a shit.

But what happened was that one day, I saw someone who was answering a hypothetical from someone else about something that had nothing to do with libertarianism.

‘Oh, Lordy,’ I thought to myself. ‘Good luck to you, sir.’

Imagine my surprise and delight when I saw the fellow’s response. Rather than legitimize the Giant Squid hypothetical presented to him, he modified it, and presented his modification as a response.

And when he encountered his opponent’s protest, he gave this remarkable reply: “Well, as long as we’re just supposing, if you get to suppose, then I get to suppose, too.”

Now, you’ve confused this with a strawman. A strawman is a response to a made-up argument. What the adroit gentleman was doing was not arguing against his new hypothetical, but giving his new hypothetical as a response.

Take Single Dad’s thing, for example. Single Dad said people didn’t have time to dig a well before thirsting to death, and the Two Mean Men made sure that no one got any water if they tried to compete.

Well, since Single Dad was just supposing, I get to suppose, too. An entrepreneur in a nearby town hears about the Two Mean Men and rejoices. He comes to the town and digs a well that afternoon and begins supplying water to the thristy people. The Two Mean Men go broke.

Every one of the hypotheticals about evil rich people who suddenly take urges to torture everyone around them is so pitifully stupid, so profoundly Neanderthal, so embarrasingly ridiculous, that it tags those who propose them as intellectual cripples.

In a context where no one can force you to put up with their bullshit, only a mental nimrod would fail to conceive that someone will see an economic opportunity and exploit it.

And the most fun thing of all for me is when the opponent screams in protest, “I said nothing about a neighboring town or an entrepreneur!”. Because that’s when I get to say, “Well, if you’re just supposing, then I get to suppose, too.”

So flail, scream, and call me a liar all you like. Offer all the insincere apologies you like. I don’t care what you think. I just plain don’t care. :slight_smile:

Which is why what you’re selling is not very competitive with political philosophies put forth by posters who do care. Just consider us “statists” to be entrepeneurs from out of town, Lib. :wink:

Do not extrapolate that I don’t care what Mapache thinks into anything broader. When a man says that I am a fool and a liar who is not allowed to suppose while he supposes to a fare-thee-well, I don’t care what he thinks. But I care very much what you think, Xeno. What you think matters to me. You should know that, my friend.

I do, sir; I do indeed. I meant to imply merely that other political philosophies can more easily be presented as seeking real methods toward “social good” (however fuzzy that concept may be), and that this seems to be more palatable to more people. The “what-if” scenarios thrown at libertarian philosophy, however contrived, can actually be dealt with -in theory- by most other political philosophies. (Sometimes not to anyone’s real satisfaction, but to the point that the question need not be dodged.)

Any snarkiness in my previous post was due to humorous intent, rather than any intention to wound.

Also, I realize that the lack of specific answers yielded by libertarian thought are not due to a lack of concern by libertarians, but simply because the questions asked are not within the scope of libertarianism to deal with.

Would you point out just where I flail and scream? Where I call you a fool and a liar? Where I said you aren’t allowed to suppose?
In the particular case I mentioned, in SD’s original post, the discussion was about SCARCE AND VITAL (There. I’m screaming, I suppose) resources.
In a remote desert town, which was specified, digging a well is probably not a very rewarding practice. I should know; I live in one. Come visit someday, and I can show you two 35 meter deep dry holes in my own back yard. I don’t care how many entrepreneurs show up, they aren’t going to find water where there isn’t any.
The water isn’t the central point anyway. Scarce and vital resources do exist, and, in the Libertaria you describe they will be controlled by some individual for his own profit. If the resource is scarce enough, and vital enough, anyone who is sufficiently greedy can use that resource to control other people; to coerce them, if you like.
Perhaps, instead of launching a barrage of insults, you might try actually answering the objection.
Oh, and thanks very much for your demonstration of Christian love and forebearance. You’re an inspiration to us all.

But so can these situations. Given Libertaria’s action against coercion, I do not see a plausible way for a damaging H[sub]2[/sub]O monopoly to exist without some water-neighbor coming over to make an easy buck. A monopoly needs to be coercive to stay in business, or it needs to be a good business. No?

No, we don’t like; that’s why we like Libertaria. Is this really so unclear? Can you construct a hypothetical situation for a water-baron that isn’t open to prosecution or other action from a government-against-coercion, or isn’t open to a neighboring water-baron (who is neither an ass nor an idiot) coming in and under-cutting the man in question? Or are we simply supposing an oligarchy right off the bat for water?

Lost track of this thread.

Lib, thanks for answering my questions. Since it’s back on the last page, let me bring it up here:

So, as a citizen I can appeal to a government arbitrator if I feel that environmental pollutants of some kind or another constitute an initiation of force.

The government, then, through the agency of its arbitrator will determine whether the particualr level of pollutants in question is unlawful, and if it is unlawful then the government will act against the polluters. Are governemtn arbitrators restricted by precedent? If government arbitrator A decides that 5 ppm of arsenic in ground water represents an initiation of force in my case, would governement arbitrator B have to follow the same standard for minty?

Well, I think the reason people ask you these questions, and get frustrated when you give the rich benefactor answer, is because they’re asking if Libertaria has any structural solution to problems like that. Regulations exist in current statist governments to solve either real or perceived problems, because relying on the good will of individuals hasn’t been sufficient to solve the problems. I think a lot of people are just curious as to how your hypothetical society will solve the problems and prevent the abuses.

And, btw, the “Man controls all the water” scenario isn’t that far fetched…it’s happened. During Western settlement, individuals and groups (railroads and ranchers, especially) were able to control large amounts of land they didn’t have legal title to just by making sure they owned the water sources. The water table being what it is in parts of the midwest, the people owning the rest of the land, who needed the water, weren’t able to sink wells into the land they owned, and were therefore forced to either sell the land to the water-owning entity or agree to some pretty harsh conditions in exchange for water. You had a monopoly, not because coercion was used, but merely because of the scarcity and value of the resource.

Can you show me how a purveyor of any product is operating coercively under a libertarian definition by setting his prices however he likes? That would be an actual responsive answer to the question; a hypothetical competitor miraculously appearing is not, particularly since human history abounds with instances where such competition could not be forthcoming (due to economies of transportation, material and equipment outlay, etc.).

I think that if I were an arbiter, I would rely at least somewhat on precedent, but not always and not totally. Sometimes, things are scientifically proven, so that I can determine that X ppm of Y can cause you harm. But often, things are not so clear. What one man can tolerate, another cannot. I think what would matter more to me in a case like that would be the testimony of your physician.

But in every case, an arbiter is charged with the same two-fold responsibility, namely to determine whether you have been coerced, and if so by whom. Beyond that, he is bound only by the same law that binds you. You can call upon precedent, or plead a case with logic, or solicit testimony from experts you hire, or anything at all that is within the law to convince the arbiter that you have been coerced.

The hypothetical competitor would be miraculous in a context wherein his competition is suppressed, or he is concerned for his life and safety, or his government makes laws that favor his oppressors.

But in a context where he may compete freely, with no concern about coercive interference, his arising when such a glaring economic opportunity presents itself is hardly a miracle. In fact, it is a near certainty.

True, human history abounds with the instances you speak of, but the same history abounds with coercive oppression along with them. So the appeal to history is unsound.

Lib, you and erislover have characterized the introduction of water competition in the Evil Waterlord Conspiracy Scenario as “an easy buck” and as a “glaring economic opportunity” with a “near certainty” of being exploited. Forgive the rest of us for considering that response too glib by far.

The constraints of a libertarian context are such that only the happenstance of an outside agency, rather than a “guaranteed” government response, can deal with the EWCS. You may call that a “near certainty”, but I think I see a deus ex machina here. And that’s just lazy writing.

Erislover said: “No, we don’t like; that’s why we like Libertaria. Is this really so unclear? Can you construct a hypothetical situation for a water-baron that isn’t open to prosecution or other action from a government-against-coercion, or isn’t open to a neighboring water-baron (who is neither an ass nor an idiot) coming in and under-cutting the man in question? Or are we simply supposing an oligarchy right off the bat for water?”

I just did exactly that, and Captain Amazing did a nice followup.
What is it about SCARCE AND VITAL that you don’t get?
If it’s water we’re talking about, most REMOTE DESERT towns have only one source of water; in fact, the reason there’s a town there in the first place is that there is a spring, or a seasonal creek or whatever that is the only source of water for a long way.

Further reply to Lib’s kindly remonstrations: you have mentioned that you don’t like people putting words into your mouth; why do you do the same to me? I said nothing whatever about “evil rich people who suddenly take urges to torture everyone around them” and in fact, in the other thread, I went to some length to explain that I believe nothing of the sort. I didn’t offer an “insincere apology”; I didn’t say a word about apologizing;
I called you no names. I didn’t describe you as “pitifully stupid”
“profoundly Neanderthal”, “embarrasingly ridiculous”, an “intellectual cripple” or a “mental nimrod”. I don’t believe that my post can reasonably be described as “crash(ing) a debate with the rhetorical equivalent of bug-eyed arm-flailing”. I offered what I believe to be one of many serious objections to your ideas about Libertarianism, and pointed out that you often reply to objections with strawmen (and invective, though I didn’t mention that.) That you don’t give a shit what I think is your prerogative; I had thought that this message board was meant for a reasonably polite (outside of the Pit) exchange of ideas.
Perhaps there are other believers in Libertarianism (by the way, I used to be one; even volunteered to help the Libertarian candidate’s campaign for governor of Hawaii in, IIRC, 1976. But I got over it.) who would like to address some of the objections I and others have raised with less rancor.

The idea that a man will rise to a golden economic opportunity is certainly no more glib than the idea that a man will kill off all his customers by thirsting them to death. That’s a diabolus ex machina. Lazy writing indeed.

And incidentally, wrapping yourself up as some greater group (“the rest of us”) adds nothing to your argument.

That’s interesting. How do you suppose those people came to be there, together?

“The rest of us” = me, Mapache and Captain Amazing. So far. In this thread.

And it’s not the notion that someone would take advantage of a golden opportunity I find glib; it’s the automatic characterization of the opportunity as “golden”.

Look, nobody’s asking libertarianism to produce an action guaranteeing everybody’s access to water in every circumstance. But is it too much to ask for you to say “if there is no action by the water source owner coercing people into purchasing water from him, or preventing them from going elsewhere for the product, a libertarian government would have no cause for action”? You can, of course, insist that in every imaginable case of monopolistic behavior, “the Market” aka Invisible Hand will provide a solution. You can even insist that Spider Man will provide a solution. But you must admit, somewhere along the line, that absent direct coercion on someone’s part this is NOT a situation where government action would be forthcoming in a libertarian context.

Is there no check upon the arbitrariness of the arbitrator? Could a citizen unhappy with the verdict of one arbitrator simply keep petitioning new government arbitrators until he receives a verdict that he likes better (or exhausts all candidates, obviously)?

I think equity of treatment under the law is always an ideal of which institution run by men will fall short, but I think it is an idealworth striving for nontheless.

Xeno

I don’t know when I’ve ever said anything else. But just to make sure the record is clear, updated, and unequivocal: libertarian government does not presume — does not even try! — to solve people’s problems except one, the initiation of force or fraud. It won’t feed people. It won’t give people water. It won’t subsidize their businesses, their retirements, or their medical care.

Now. If you don’t mind, could you explain what exactly it is that would prevent an entrepreneur (not a magical person, just an ordinary person) from seizing an economic opportunity when a business starts telling its customers it hates them and wishes they would die?


Spiritus

If you believe your arbiter has discharged his duty fraudulently, failing to make a good faith determination about coercion as he had sworn to do, then you may charge him with coercion. If he is found guilty, then you are exhonerated. But if he is exhonerated, then your recourse has ended.