A while ago “The Tragedy of the Commons” as an established critique of Liberteria was pointed out to me. I had at the time independently suggested that very problem with Liberteria more on the basis of Game Theory applications to human sociocultural and ethical evolution. Turns out others had written on it long ago and my ignorance was showing.
The issue is that liberterianism, like communism, seems to assume that individuals will consider the good of the whole over their selfish short term interests and choose accordingly. But Game Theory predicts that individuals will abuse common resources and suffer if they do not, even if the group as a whole is worse off for the abuse. Think “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.”
In small tribal groups this is controlled by behavioral expectations and unwritten social contracts with consequences for cheating and rewards for behavior that benefits the group as a whole. Larger societies do not have the face to face consequences of smaller tribal groups and substitute formal governmental structures and controls to implement those rewards and consequences and thus to protect the common interest against the short term individual gain. It is only through governments that individuals can effectively function as more than kinship groupings.
I certainly have empathy for the libertain affection for individualism and individual freedoms and I strongly feel that society must make a compelling case for societal good before those rights are restricted. But I have never seen a satisfactory answer to this Tragedy of the Commons complaint by any defender of hard liberterianism.
IANALibertarian, but the discussions I’ve had with many of them on these boards and elsewhere indicate that some of them would try to handle the problem by eliminating “common resources” as much as possible. That is, anybody could be held accountable for using or damaging anything they didn’t actually own.
So if a property owner in Libertaria pollutes a “common resource” like a river or a water table, and the pollution damages somebody else’s property, the polluter is on the hook if the other property owner seeks redress. Personally, I think this sounds more complicated and less effective than just having good old Nanny Government make and enforce some antipollution regulations, but then IANALibertarian.
I presume that ordinary, non-damaging use of “common resources” is accounted for by making everybody pay usage fees, although I don’t know if that extends as far as charging for the air you breathe and so on. And I don’t know how you’d go about determining ownership of things like the air and the water table anyway.
To the extent that these sorts of issues need to be settled by a society-wide enforceable agreement, i.e., a legal restriction, ISTM that they are not amenable to a strictly libertarian approach. Libertarianism, AFAICT, tries to base all legal action ultimately on the concepts of private property and liberty of contract, and some types of resources are just not very intrinsically “privatizable”.
More correctly, libertarian economic ideas (free market capitalism) says that society is improved through the process of many people individually pursuing their own goals in the correct context (such as laws prohibiting violence and fraud)
Very much true. One way to correct this is to turn the common-interest into self-interest. One way of doing this is to get rid of the commons. If patches of the commons are owned by individuals, then they can allow thier cattle to graze on their own patches to their hearts content, and suddenly it becomes smarter to conserve their own portions of the land. Another solution is to keep the commons common, but sell the right to allow your cattle to graze their for some specified amount of time. There is still some incentive to conserve the commons, because buying them all for yourself would be expensive. These are just examples, I’m sure someone else will be along with better ideas. On preview, I not that Kimstu has alread covered some of this topic.
Other solutions to Game Theory models are based on the ability to determine who you play with, and to detect cheaters. Many authors have covered ground similar to this, off the top of my head it’s been written about it Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate and Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves Under this model, the people who could use the commons would be determined democratically. Those who were found to act too selfishly would be banned from the commons, or possibly face some other punishment like fines. I don’t believe this solution conflicts with libertarianism so long as people are free to enter into an agreement like this of their own will.
Kimstu, maybe I have been away from the boards too long, but can you tell me what “IANALibertarian” means?
For now, I’ll ignore it and try to address a few of the issues raised here.
First and Foremost: There is a common misconception that, because of the focus on individual rights, libertarianism in general simple cannot address the “tragedy of the commons” issue. In fact, I don’t know of any libertarians who believe this to be so. From my standpoint, it is the same as saying that libertarianism cannot address “murder”. If you are doing something that makes the planet less livable or the water less drinkable, you are in fact harming other people, and pretty much all libertarians believe that this is a no-no. The difficulty in defining solutions arises from the fact that it can’t be addressed solely through property rights–or if so, it is difficult. And let’s face it, whether you are a libertarian or not, some of these issues are quite complex and don’t lend themselves to obvious solutions. But this does NOT mean that “libertaria” would not address them.
Libertarians are about personal responsibility, so libertarians would focus on ways to hold people/companies responsible for the harm that they do others. Obviously, we are not fond of coercive government. Still, as is the case with murder, if someone is harming others, then coersion is a legitimate governmental response. Even in those cases, though, we would try as much as possible to provide solutions that make use of the power of markets and a person’s tendency to act in their own best interest.
Second, I do believe that there are many cases where what is now considered a “commons” should in fact be someone’s private property. There is a fair amount of evidence to support the assertion that one of the worst stewards of the environment is the US government, so I am against having “national” forests and such. Nonetheless, this still ignores issues like air and water pollution.
The case of air pollution is a particularly tricky one. In an ideal world, no one would be allowed to pollute air that everyone else uses. Unfortunately, if we enforced such a rule, most of civilization would grind to a halt. The question, then, becomes how do we limit pollution, and how do we try to make it lower with each passing year?
One example of a libertarian-ish solution may be seen in recent trends for dealing with certain kinds of air pollution. The government sets an upper limit on what is allowable and issues “vouchers” that entitle the holder to add a certain amount of pollution to the air. These vouchers are transerrable, so one company may sell them to another if they find a way to decrease the amount of pollution they create. In other words, the ability to pollute is turned into a market, with rewards for people who run cleaner businesses and additional costs for those who don’t. Rather than an outright punishment, investment in cleaner technologies becomes a competitive move. At the same time, companies that don’t invest will find that continuing to do business gets increasingly expensive. To keep things moving in the preferred direction, the government can offer fewer pollution vouchers each year until an “acceptable” level is reached.
Since individual property law does not “naturally” hold someone responsible for abuses of the commons, then it becomes a job of government to find a way to protect the citizenry from these abuses. An idea such as the “voucher” system is pleasing to libertarians because it focuses on holding people/companies responsible for their actions. The fact that we can’t really say who owns the air does not mean that the government is not responsible for protecting us from harm. In this case, a new kind of property is created (pollution vouchers) so that market forces may be put into play.
The key distinction for libertarians is whether, in fact, the behavior being questioned does harm to others. If it does, then it falls under the purview of the government and may be addressed using coercive means.
Another common example involves the spread of communicable disease. How do you prevent someone from spreading the plague without violating their liberty? Well, unfortunately, the answer is that you don’t. Unless and until we somehow find a way to make people responsible for the various bacteria and viruses inside their bodies, then we have no choice but to violate their liberty. It’s another one of those cases where the complexity of the issue or the limits of science do NOT make it acceptable for one person to cause harm to another.
Yet another example would be dealing with wildlife and endangered species. It is another example where a libertarian approach would be to try to find a way to use property rights and a person’s natural desire to protect their own interests to bring about desired results. There is an interesting article on ReasonOnline about the use of such an approach to protect some of the many endangered species in Africa.
Here is another interesting article about libertarian responses to arguments about the tragedy of the commons, focusing in particular on the ways in which private property rights can be used to protect the commons.
In short, there is nothing in libertarianism that demands that commons tragedies must be allowed. In fact, I would argue that the notion of protecting all individuals from harm pretty much requires a “libertaria” to address these issues. The only real difference is that, in libertaria, solutions focus on personal responsibility and on making use of personal property as much as possible.
As I mentioned, where possible, this would be a preferred libertarian approach.
In some cases, you are probably correct, in which case the non-Nanny Government would, in fact, have to act. However, a libertarian government would be much less likely to use the “antipollution regulation” approach (see above).
Clearly, in some cases, you can’t. Nonetheless, the government IS there to protect us all from harm by others–even in cases where the harm is indirect.
I’m not sure what a “strictly libertarian approach” is–other than “one that works”.
I think I have already addressed this. However, I will point out that “liberty of contract” is just a logical consequence of “personal liberty” in general.
[I’ve seen a few posts of yours since you returned **Smartass**, but haven’t yet posted in any of those threads. It’s terrific to see you back.]
IANaLibertarian either, but it’s important to remember that it’s a pretty broad church. There’s great diversity of opinion. The answers so far lie towards the instrumentalist end of the libertarian spectrum: the idea that free contract is a good way of solving problems. Other libertarians would be rather less concerned - or not concerned at all - with outcomes.
A few positions you might get (some have already been well covered here):
[ul][li]Outcomes don’t matter, only absence of coercion does. If common property problems can be solved by free contract, jolly good, if they can’t it doesn’t matter. Talking about the successes of markets in filling bellies and sustaining fisheries is to miss the point: free contracting is good in itself.[/li][li]Government solutions to common property problems merely inhibit the operation of market solutions. Common property problems are real and difficult, but people would find a way. Some in this category would think that governments would have a role in defining property rights in such a way as to assist emerging market solutions (like marketable pollution permits); others would deny that governments have that capability.[/li][li]Governments cause common property problems. If government just got out of the way, the market would be able to deal with the situation pretty well straight away. [/li]Markets can’t “solve” common property problems, but to imagine this is what markets do is a misconception (of the neoclassical school of economics). Of course markets won’t result in a perfect solution, but they’ll do pretty well. Governments on paper could do better, but in practice they don’t.[/ul]
Thank you for the elucidating posts. If I may condense - the answer seems to be that real life liberterians take a pragmatic aproach to governance and recognize that they cannot be too dogmatic. The issue for them is not governmental regulation per se (if “the behavior being questioned does harm to others … then it falls under the purview of the government and may be addressed using coercive means”) but how much of what kind of harm to others justifies how much coercion and what sorts of means should be utilized. The liberterian preference being that the societal benefit to governmental intereference has to be substantial to be justified and the means should be as compatable with individual rights and free market forces as possible to achieve the end.
More questions.
Does “individual rights” mean just property rights or does it extend to other freedoms of modern secular society?
Is the benefit to society restricted to preventing fairly direct harm to others or does it extend to other venues like protection of other individual freedoms or positive benefits such as the health of the public at large (briefly alluded to in relation to the spread of disease but by extension to healthcare in general)?
I think you give the Libertarians too much credit. I’ve never met one who thinks at that level. Libertarians focus on all the things the government won’t let them do/forces them to do. These grievances generally boil down to things they’re perfectly able to do (but too chickenshit to go through with) or perfectly able to not do (but don’t want to be stigmatized). Occasionally they’ll get more grandiose and start kvetching about the availability of public education (for kids other than their own, no less!) or how the eeeeeevil government stops those nice businesses from dumping pesticides in the water supply (which the free market would handle just fine by having all their customers die, thank you very much). But these are not people who are searching for a way to solve the ills of the world and improve the lot of their fellow man.
The Libertarian viewpoint boils down to the argument that “natural right” and “moral principle” constrict the government to doing exactly what they want, and nothing else. The whole philosophy is just an appeal to authority in a pretty wrapper.
Yes indeed. Property rights are the ones most commonly discussed. But libertarians believe the property rights are derived from the other more important rights. Freedom, Life that sort of thing. This is one reason the libertarians tend to think property rights are more important than others.
I think many libertarians would say that the government should be limited to pretty clear cases of harm caused by someone against someone else. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt or something similar.
I don’t know where to begin. Perhaps I’ll just limit myself to the internal consistency of your argument. Even given that you have characterized libertarian arguments (Note, just in case your not sure, you have not. Not even close) you have not provided any “authority” at all. How can a philosophy boil down to an appeal on authority without even naming said authority?
Thanks. You may be the first person to mention remembering any of my posts from the past.
To me, the distinction here is little more than looking at two sides of the same coin. Libertarians pretty much believe that freedom will enable people to solve for themselves problems that they want solved–and, as you mentioned, many don’t worry too much about the issue beyond that. Having given these issues a fair amount of thought, I am convinced that we won’t recruit too many new libertarians without being able to suggest ways in which people might solve problems. Otherwise, it tends to sound like nothing more than a scary every-man-for-himself land of suffering. Most of the resistance that I have seen to libertarian ideas have focused on concerns about problems that may go unaddressed if government is not addressing them. I think that if libertarians want to ever see any of their beliefs implemented, we must find ways to help people come to understand how the world would, in fact, be a better place for everyone if it were libertarian.
Outcomes don’t matter to libertarian principles, but they very much matter to individuals living in society, and a libertarian society is built on allowing people to be free to pursue outcomes they prefer. And let’s face it, if it looked like the result of libertarian laws would be misery, suffering, and the destruction of our habitat, who would care how “good” freedom of contract is?
This pretty much describes how I think. However, I am also willing to share examples of the “ways” that people find.
When you talk about something like pollution, I’m not sure how someone could claim to be libertarian and yet deny that government would have the authority to act in this case. It would require a redefinition of libertarianism or a proof that polluting does not harm others.
Another statement I agree with.
Pretty much agree with this, too. But I would mention that saying “markets can’t solve problems” is to leave the listener hanging unnecessarily. Of course, markets don’t solve problems, that’s not what they are for. People solve problems, and they are most able to do this effectively in a free market where their rights are protected.
I have been thinking in a libertarian way for so long that I have “internalized” a lot of it. It is this internalization that leads to the circular debates I have seen so many of in this forum–this inability to get anywhere was one of the reasons I stopped posting several years ago. A lot of stuff has happened since then and I’ve thought about a lot of things. My feeling now is that, if I am going to debate these issues, I want to find some ways to change the pattern so that maybe the impasse can be broken. There are a lot of smart people posting here that just haven’t internalized libertarian beliefs; I like to think that if I can share something more than the standard rant about rights–in particular, that libertarianism is not about selfishness–then some of these smart people may actually start to agree.
Or, who knows, maybe they’l show me the error of my ways. But as long as everyone just talks in circles, we may as well be arguing about religion. I don’t want libertarianism to be my personal God; I want it to be a belief that spreads and gains mindshare so that we can all have better lives. And I am one of those people who likes to put their beliefs to the test every now and then. If they can’t survive a good debate, then I need to be finding some new ones anyway.
Hmm. I thought that all of those freedoms and rights were property rights - you own yourself (and all of the associated rights and freedoms) at the most fundamental level. Is what I have outlined my inferring stuff that just ain’t there or overgeneralizing what some libertarians believe?
I think there are some libertarians who may put it that way. That liberties are properties owned by the individual. But I’ve never found that arrangement very persuasive. What happens when a person wants to sell his life, for instance?
I think the misperception comes from the fact that almost all political discussions involving libertarianism center on taxes and by extension property rights. It tends to give the impression that libertarians care about property first and everything else second. hawthorne correctly noted that this is backwards. Libertarians are more concerned about how to form society with the least amount of coercion first and believe that strong property rights are a necessary component of this.
Myself, I’ve become something of a weak libertarian when it comes to property rights. I don’t necessarily want to elliminate income taxes, for instance. I’d be satisfied with some sort of amendment simply limiting them to some maximum percentage. In some libertarian circles this amounts to herrasy.
It can be quite confusing though, because it seems that there are strains of Libertarianism that really seem to seek to define all rights as property rights in some fashion. Maybe another reason property rights are focused on because it is more useful in rhetoric- in the classical sense of the word. They are just a more familiar and concrete issue.
Oh, puh-leeze. By this argument, Fred Phelps is perfectly justified in complaining about homosexuals who are perfectly able to get themselves “straightened out” and perfectly able to refrain from sodomy.
This is one of the things i’ve found a little off-putting about that particular brand of libertarianism.
I’ve kind of assumed that the reason that libertarians (wrt politics and public policy) seem to emphasize the economic and property was that things in general seem to be more trending the libertarians way socially than economically - over the past few decades things have loosened up wrt to personal freedoms while perceived governmental economic interference (whether through taxes or regulation) has been remaining constant or increasing.
you address people like me quite well. And I have very slight reassurance by what I read here.
I have great respect for individual rights, although my focus is less on property rights than on other freedoms. Liberterianism, even its most pragmatic forms, loses me with its narrrow definition of “harm” and its public emphasis on property rights rather than on other liberties. To me the lack of significant societal benefits is a kind of harm which may be great enough to warrant intervention by sociey via its appointed representatives. Always attempting to accomplish the most good for the least coercion at the least cost. Always respecting the value of freedoms and limiting them only for significant societal good. Where markets can be arranged to motivate free market creative solutions such should be done. It takes a great deal of good to justify a little coercion in my book, as I believe in yours; we differ in what constitues the good.
Things have loosened up wrt personal freedoms !!??! Hoo hah. I see more governmental involvement and restrictions of rights for at least this administration and no real gains over the last decade or so. What do you seee that I’m missing?
Me too. There are even more looney fringes of the movement however. This is one of the reasons that I am not a “L” libertarian.
I’m not sure I completely agree with your assesment of history. I think things have moved in cycles generally folowing your outline, however. But this is sort of what I was talking about. Most discussions including libertarianism center on taxes and therefore property. This leads to the misconceptiion that libertarians only care about loweing their own taxes or that they are only concerned with property rights. The truth is that property rights are still being debated as we speak. The debate is not as stark as it was 70 years ago (communism was a much more viable option), but it is till being fought today IMHO.
