It might not be profitable to do so. There might be a resource, such as the aforementioned water in the desert, for example, that I, controlling the local source, can make a profit selling, but you, who has to truck or pipe the water a long way, wouldn’t be able to.
Yes, well, you would have to be hauling water a loooooooooong way to make it so prohibitive that our scary monopolist can charge so much for it as to cripple a destitute town. You see what we’re driving at here? We’re not talking about normal transportation costs any more, because if this monopolist is charging so much for water, those are covered easily.
Please allow me to finish the sentence in the manner the original scenario (IIRC) painted the situation: “…when a business starts extorting unusual conditions for its services or products based on an area monopoly of that service or product.”
Now, the short answer is that I know of no circumstance which would absolutely prevent an entrepeneur from stepping in, just as you can give no absolute assurance for entepreneurial remediation of the EWCS. However (longer answer), there are many possible inducements to entrepreneurship, and many possible disincentives as well. Since the focus of your question is “why would a competitor not necessarily appear?”, I will list a few of the latter. I will also answer the implied corollary “and why would this competition not necessarily alleviate the coercive conditions faced by the woeful victims of the EWCS?”
Things that would discourage entrepreneurship:
[ul][li]Cost of transportation of product or provision of service to new area. In the EWCS, we’re assuming in one instance that the entrepeneur has water from an outside source which would have to be transported to the remote desert area in which the EWCS is occuring. This may not be an insignificant cost, and would also most probably have some expected loss of product associated with it.[]Cost of initial equipment set up. Again, if water is transported in, vending containers must be purchased or rented. Perhaps a pipeline would need to be set up instead, necessitating purchase of rights from intervening land owners. (Let’s assume the entrepreneur owns or rents sufficient market area in the neighborhood of the EWCS for vending.) If water is to be extracted locally (a different instance), drilling equipment and labor must be purchased or rented in addition to storage containers for the extracted product.[]Conflict with the notoriously venal and wickedly abusive Evil Waterlord. I wonder how much faith our intrepid entrepreneur has in the arbiters of Libertaria.[/ul][/li]These are not nearly all of the negative factors which must be considered by our clear-eyed entrepreneur, but they’ll suffice as a demonstration that the opportunity cannot automatically be assumed to be “golden”. But even assuming that our Hero does see advantages in water futures in EWCSville, his competition may not yield long term relief for the natives.
Things that might not work out so good for EWCS townees:
[ul][li]Our boy need only undercut the Evil Warlord’s prices by a small percentage to draw business. This could produce a price war (good for the townees). Or, our EW could shrug off the loss and hang tight. His prices don’t budge, but neither do our Hero’s as long as he’s making money. The townees now have two Waterlords, EW and Mini Me.[]EW might buy Mini Me out for a large sum. He’s got the dough. And MM just wants to make money peacefully and honestly. This leaves EW back to bidness-as-usual.[]MM might buy EW out. Even EW’s want to retire eventually. This transfers the EWCS to MM, who immediately grows three feet and buys a monocle. And a hairless cat.[/ul][/li]
Remediation of an EWCS is merely a likelihood in Libertaria (I’ll even admit it’s a better than even proposition in damn near all cases). But it is not assured. In other systems, remediation is guaranteed, because it IS within the scope of government.
It doesn’t take “bad faith” from an arbiter to go counter to precedent when equity of treatment is not a requirement. Spiritus is talking about unwise or inconsistent rulings, not dishonest ones.
Well, actually my concern was more with inconsistent than unwise, initially, but if the citizen has absolutely 0 recourse after initial arbitration save for demonstrating coersion on the part of the arbitrator, then I would definitely add “unwise” to my concerns.
On a related issue, does Libertaria have a mechanism for applying arbitration simultaneously to large number of claimants/defendants?
Ah. Well, I don’t think you can require wisdom of any many — even Totalitopia doesn’t do that. As for consistency, you’re presuming a consistency of precedent, when all Libertaria requires is a consistency of principle.
Regarding your change in the scenario, I won’t begrudge you that. But let’s be clear that you did change it. Single Dad made it clear that Bill and Ted were just plain mean and got a kick out of making everybody miserable. In fact, they “decide they want to be absolute tyrants of our community”.
And I don’t really want to suppose that they are extortionists because that makes the response too easy. Extortion is a coercion, a your-money-or-your-life sort of threat. So the property of Bill and Ted would go over to the customers whom they extorted. And I’m confident you don’t want to hear of Noncoercion making something sensible happen.
So, can we meet halfway with “they begin charging prices that no one can afford, effectively denying them water”?
But in whatever case, your cost obstacles are easily overcome by venture capitalism. Operating businesses is not the only entrepreneural activity. Many entrepreneurs enjoy the highly competitive and risk-taking environment of investment. And all the more so when they see such a wide open niche as a water supply in an overpriced market.
Your curve about the faith in the arbiters is beneath you. Need we really begin the mudslinging about who is more corrupt than whom? If you can put forward a solution to man’s oppression that is corruption-free, then do so. Otherwise, don’t resort to that sort of thing and expect it to pass as sound argument.
You’re right that a price war might break out. But that breaks down the stipulation that Bill and Ted won’t give people enough water to sustain them for moving to greener pastures. And heck, even besides that, someone launched a Pit thread about Nestles company and called for a boycott because Nestle is demanding repayment of a loan from Ethiopia. Now, it seems to me that if people can get riled up about that, they can get way way way more riled up about someone who deprived them, their families, and their children even of water. They’re as likely to tell Bill and Ted to go fuck themselves even if the drop their water prices to rock bottom.
The new guy need only have reasonable pricing.
If Bill and Ted buy out the new guy, then the niche opens again and entrepreneurs see opportunity again.
I don’t know what to make of the hairless cat thing. Hopefully, an interjection of humor to keep us from getting too worked up over all this. And I’ll drink to that! 
On preview from Spiritus
Well claimants may voluntarily merge their interests if they like. Think of libertarianism as a synonym for volunteerism.
And with all due respect, maybe that’s the problem with it. This is more a moral argument than it is a practical one, and so I’m uncomfortable making it, first because I’m uncomfortable stating my moral views in general, and secondly, because, having read some of your posts, I’m intimidated arguing philosophy with you…you know so much more about the topic than I do.
But, it seems to me, and I think a lot of other people think so to, that the government getting involved in trying to “solve people’s problems” is a good thing. It seems like making sure people don’t starve, and, if there’s some disease epidemic, that people are quarantened and treated, and roads get built , and people know how to read, and the environment doesn’t get so polluted we all die, are all things that the whole society has an interest in, and therefore things governments should get involved in.
I work as a paralegal in a telecommunications law firm, and one of the big things we do is make sure our clients (mostly cell phone and trucking companies) get and keep licenses to operate their phone systems or dispatch radios. The FCC regulates the use of these licenses and of the entire radio spectrum, because if the system isn’t regulated…if anybody can broadcast anything on any frequency, it’ll lead to two different broadcasts on the same frequency, and what will happen is, either the stronger signal will drown the weaker out, or they’ll both become garbled and useless. If this happens to a tv station, it’s annoying to the viewers, if it happens to a taxi dispatcher, it costs business, and if it happens to a police, fire, or ambulance dispatcher, it can be fatal.
I’m not saying that government is perfect, because it’s not, or that the government should run people’s lives, because I don’t believe that either. There’s a lot the government does that’s wasteful, or stupid, or overly restrictive. But I do think that the government has some role to play in the society other than just some sort of referee.
Well, consistency of principle makes perfect wense when in all cases the principle can be applied straightforwardly. When I think of millions of human beings interacting on many levels, though, I admit that I find myself dubious that consistency of principle would result in equity to treatment. Still, such concerns can only remain hypothetical until a Libertaria is actually formed.
As to wisdom, I readily admit that the only form of government I can imagine which guarantees wisdom in the exercise of power is “enliightened totalitarianism”, wherein the wisdom of the enlightened is presumed. If I were a long-dead Greek I might even write a utopian fantasy based upon the idea, but I doubt that I would actually want to live in one. Digressions aside, though, what would trouble me as a citizen of Libertaria is that unwise decisions by a gonvernment arbitrator cannot be challenged. I would have no recourse to apeal for a wiser ruling, new evaluation of evidence, etc. I view this as a real deficiency.
The problem is not that the arbitration in Libertaria migfht not be wise, that problem is endemic to human agency. The problem is that it contains no mechanism to rectify unwise decisions. At least, not in a manner which would provide relief for me. It is certainly possible that another citizen would make substantially the same complaint and receive a more favorable arbitration from a wiser arbitrator. Of course, this points me back to the idea of equality in treatment.
Hmm. I think I’ve just thought of something that goes to the heart of my thoughts on libertarianism.
In our current system of government (and in most societies in the world), having a significant amount of money (and/or property) buys a very large amount of power over people. And, as we have seen in everyday life, people with that advantage may tend to abuse that power.
Now, is it the libertarian position that the power of the market, competition, free enterprise, etc. will reduce, eliminate, or render irrelevant the potential for that abuse, as compared to the way things are now?
I think this is an appropriate thread for this, since environmental standards, in a sense, address that tendency for abuse, and I’d be interested in the answer…
Captain Amazing wrote:
Don’t be intimidated. I know much less about philosophy than Spiritus, but I enjoy my discussions with him. You’re right that this is all a moral argument of a sort, or at least an ethical one. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and thus is concerned with the ethics of man. Its Noncoercion Principle is an ethics statement.
Well, there’s a bit of both carots and potatoes in that stew. Libertarian government won’t feed people, but it will suppress the vandalism of pollution.
You’ve probably read Henry David Thoreau’s Walden. “If I knew for a certainty,” he wrote, “that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”
The argument that you’re making is a very common criticism of libertarianism, and I acknowledge its validity. I do not, however, acknowledge its soundness. Before I could make your argument for myself and be satisfied with it, I would have to begin with certain premises that I believe do not hold. They are:
- People don’t know what’s good for themselves, and so they need someone to tell them what’s good for them.
The problems with that premise, as I see it, are manifold. For one thing, its second clause makes a presumption that contradicts it first clause unless by “someone”, we mean a machine or a nonhuman animal. Second, it’s prima facie false, as there are many people who do know what’s good for themselves. Third, it forces me to conclude that a fantastical benevolent dictator is needed, specifically one who knows what’s good for everyone. And finally, given that a dictator is not palatable, it presumes that these same people who don’t know WHAT is good for themselves, do know WHO is good for themselves. They are like political idiot savants — incompetent about examining themselves and their needs, but capable about examining the qualifications and intentions of those who allegedly would help them.
- The needs of everyone can be ascertained and quantified by a third party.
My problem with that premise is that needs are highly subjective matters. Take food, for instance. You would hope that it might be so simple as making sure everyone gets a healthy daily diet. But what is healthy for you might not be so healthy for me. If I eat a piece of fish, as is highly recommended by nutritionists, I will vomit violently because I am allergic to it. Needs are also quite relative. Few would argue that a man might need a coat for the winter, but how do you spec out a coat? Not everyone lives in a cold climate, people have various tolerances to temperature, and some people might visit cold places only on occasion. Is there a “need” incumbent upon you because they make a choice to go to some place where it is cold? And what about needs that are not universal at all? Working parents with children might have a dire need for a second car. But who will know better than they do whether this is the case?
“But there are basic needs required by every human being!” you might protest. And I would agree. But I would not agree that they are quantifiably the same for every human being. People need food, but what food? People need shelter, but what is sufficient? People need clothing, but why are you more qualified to decide what they will wear than they are?
- Benevolent actions will not have unintended consequences that are malevolent.
False on its face, and demonstrably false by history. See this brief article, Unintended Consequences. See also F. A. Hayek’s New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. As Spiritus has pointed out before, every action, even a local one, has unintended consequences. But when an action is made applicable universally by the force of law, it is reasonable to assume that its consequences will be more ubiquitous.
- There is no means, other than government, to provide for need.
This one is perhaps the biggest bone of contention between libertarians and authoritarians. Authoritarians argue as though it were a law of nature that certain needs will go unfulfilled unless they are coercively provided. Libertarians argue that needs are filled by the spontaneous generation of economy. (See Hayek’s book referenced above.) And both are right. The authoritarians are right when the political context is tyranny, and libertarians are right when the political context is freedom. If everyone is being told what to do, then someone has to be told to provide for needs. But if everyone has freedom of expression, then every individual can specify his needs. Just as language arises by spontaneous order to fulfill the needs of those who communicate, so will a road arise to fulfill the needs of those who travel. There is no central authority controlling language, and attempts to control it are largely ignored. It develops spontaneously. So too does it seem likely that an entrepreneur will provide a road if there is a demand.
Unfortunately, it is well proven that when people are pinned to the wall by authoritarianism, government must attempt to provide for need. It is more problematic to prove that libertarianism will work as I say when people are free to move about without harming one another since history has never allowed a test of it. But I feel instinctively that premise (4) is unsound, and am more than willing to risk it.
And finally,
- Self-interest is born of corruption
This is the one that seems to be the mantra of authoritarians. A mean man will own a thriving business that engages in denying everyone water. A rapacious man will buy up a town and reduce its population to beggars in squalor for his own enjoyment. A contumacious man will acquire and then hoard all the wealth in a community.
They cry “fantasy!” when a rescuing entrepreneur is introduced into the hypotheticals. And yet, they maintain that they are not fantastical when they posit people who just stand around wobbling like weebles, giving away all their property and freedoms willfully and without being coerced. People like you. Like me. Like Spiritus. And like Xeno.
“No! Not those people! The other people. The stupid ones. The ones who can’t think for themselves.”
Well. Now we’re back around to premise number (1).
You wouldn’t have a problem with that in Libertaria where frequencies are privately owned and an owner’s rights with respect to his property are strictly enforced.
And I disagree, respectfully. But the difference between us is that I do not require you to live with my opinion.
Spiritus wrote:
Somehow, I led you to conclude that just because you could not appeal a decision that is “unwise” you cannot appeal a decision that is ignorant. You may always present exculpation in new arbitration that was not considered in prior arbitration since that prior arbitration was incomplete. You are entitled by your consent to an arbitration that considers all the evidence.
Incidentally, I’m not sure at all that you can appeal, even now, a decision on the grounds that it is unwise. But I leave that question to the lawyers in the house.
Leaper wrote:
Eliminate? Likely not. Render irrelevant? In theory, at least.
A railroad tycoon, for example, will be unable to call upon his friend, the Senator, to make a special law that eases your property over to him. There is no legislation in Libertaria and only one law.
All that libertarianism seeks to eliminate is force or fraud that is initiated against you. Your life, your body, your mind, and all your other property — these will come to no harm at the hands of others, no matter how rich they are. But the rest is up to you.
Lib
But in my hypothetical, I would have no new evidence to present other than my conviction that the first arbitrator lacked wisdom.
As to our current system, I agree with you that I can not file a court appeal based upon a contention that a decision was “unwise”, but the key difference is that in our current system citizens have alternative recourses to affect the course of government.[ul]
[li]I can lobby for legislative relief[/li][li]I can lobby for a change in laws[/li][li]I can seek executive action[/li][li]I can campaign for new elective leaders who will provide one of the above[/li][li]I can campaign for new elective leaders who will appoint judges that shift interpretations of law toward those I find more wise[/ul][/li]
My understanding of Libertaria is that none of those avenus would exist and no alternative avenues will take their place. (The possible exception being exerting an influence on the selsection of government arbitrators, since I do not think that is something that you have addressed.)
Truthfully, I was surprised when you told me that Libertaria would have no binding precedents or checks upon the decisions of arbitrators beyond a single appeal in the case of coersion by the arbitrator. To me, this seems to put great power in the hands of one individual without offering any real controls on the exercise thereof.
Spiritus
Understand that “Libertaria” is a personal preference for me. Libertaria is not the only possible manifestation of libertarianism. A government of any arbitrary form may be libertarian if its role is to supress coercion. The United States could be libertarian if it would eliminate frivolous prohibitions and regulations as well as laws and practices that give some individuals political clout over others.
The essence of libertarianism is consent; i.e., that men may give or withhold their consent to be governed by that government which to them seems most likely to effect their safety and happiness. The legitimacy of government, libertarianly speaking, is derived from the consent of the governed — not as in an abstract entity that has no consent to give, but as in individuals whose minds belong to them.
With respect to your specific concerns, no one in Libertaria has any legislative advantage over you. And if you want a legislative advantage over other men, I think you should consider whether that is fair to them. It also can (and usually does, probably) go the other way — you often find yourself at a legislative disadvantage compare to those with greater political clout.
For what it’s worth, arbiters in Libertaria are elected by popular vote. But they have no executive authority. I’m not sure what you mean by “executive action”, so I can’t speak to that.
Oh, and just for the record, I have mentioned on prior occasions that arbiters are elected, but you’ve not ordinarily participated much in the libertarianism debates as best I can recall.
Would it be in the range of a Libertarian(the country not the poster) government to maintain a record of precedents and testing results for arbiters to consult if they so desired? Arbiters could campaign on how strictly they follow the list.
PS- I did a search of your posts for “government AND maintain”, if you’ve already discussed this maybe you could just point me at a thread or your favourite lib FAQ.
Actually, you don’t have to go very far. 
Just back up a page and search on “records”.
Libertarian: your two posts above, referring to me, contained a number of false statements and insults to my intelligence and character. I, rather politely I think, called this to your attention. You ignored my posts.
Please either document, with cites, from this or any other thread where I called you a fool and a liar (I carefully avoided using the word liar); where I said you aren’t allowed to suppose; where I said anything about “evil rich people who suddenly take urges to torture everyone around them” or where I posted anything that could reasonably be described as “the rhetorical equivalent of bug-eyed arm-flailing”, or else withdraw your statements.
Lib, I don’t believe that I have addressed any concerns based upon legislatie advantage. I mentioned concerns about poor arbitration. I mentioned legislative action only as an example of how under a democratic or republican form of government a citizen might attempt to correct what he perceives as an unwise policy decision (whether codified in law or established in judicial ruling).
By the way, I have sometimes lurked in the “Libertaria” threads, but I only ask questions when I think they are actually addressing a new aspect of the hypothetical.
By the other way, you either underestimate your philosophical acumen or overestimate my own. I enjoy the thought process of philosophical investigations, but I am neither widely read nor deeply familiar with any particular schools. Most of my recent investigations, in fact, have been spurred by debates with folks lik eyou and erl on these very boards.
Okay, fair enough, Spiritus. We can just say that I misunderstood you.
I’m still convinced, though, that the legislative action thing can go either way. If there are mean old men who hoard water and starve people, there are surely mean old men who manipulate the crafting of legislation.
This is really my thrust against the government angle. The more useful a social mechanism is, the easier it is to abuse. erl’s Truism™.