What would a Libertarian America be like?

[BrainGlutton]

@Little Nemo

Global politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If the United States ceased to be a world power, other nations would step into the role. East Asia would become a Chinese sphere of influence - without the promise of American support, countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philipines, etc would come to “understandings” with Beijing. (And yes, I realize we don’t have formal defense treaties with all of these countries - but we do unofficially support them.) Relatively pro-western regimes in the Middle East like the Saudis and Mubarak’s would probably fall to more extreme regimes like Iran’s. Barring a Russian resurgence, there would probably be no major changes in Europe. Latin America, Africa, and India would also probably not experience any major changes.

So – is there a downside to any of that?

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

Let’s assume you do legalize drugs. Do you not think that some people would drug themselves to incapacity, just as they do now? What do you do with them? Are private rehab shelters going to magically spring up overnight? And how will these users buy the drugs? If they are otherwise unemployable, they will turn to crime just as they do now. There aren’t that many people whose “only crime” was possession of crack, most of them commit crimes to support their habit, which would not change in some crackpot libertarian utopia. Legalizing drugs would not significantly affect the crime rate, in spite of the pseudo statistics spouted by the libertarians.

You are forgetting that the illegality of drugs is the main factor that makes them so expensive. If they’re legal they become much cheaper; if they’r cheap enough, even semi-employed losers can afford them.

Anyway, a non-criminal approach seems to be working well enough in the Netherlands – but their approach still involves a heavy “nanny state” involvement in treatment and rehab.

[BrainGlutton]

@Der Trihs

I don’t recall the specific story or author, but I recall a short story in Analog - part of a series called Darwin’s Children, where a poor woman starved to death in a libertarian lunar colony. Thing is, that was portrayed as a good thing. I stopped reading that series, since it’s no fun to read a series when you want to murder the “heros”.

Is it this one? (Can’t seem to find the actual text online anywhere.)

[ralph124c]

@Guinastasia

Oh that’s just super! So instead of being kept busy in school, and maybe, just MAYBE having no other choice but to improve themselves, they’ll be out on the streets, causing trouble and harassing everyone else!

:rolleyes:

Well, you may be correct. But my experience as a teacher was that there were a significant number of “students” who did not want to be in school. They made no effort to learn, and impeded other students, by disrupting the classroom, interrupting others, and generally being a nuisance. My point is: why coerce these kids into staying in a place they don’t want to be? I’m all for allowing students to opt for other training-like trade schools-just keep them away from serious students.
We in the USA, think that being in school “makes” you a student-which is simply not true. This extends to the university level-the state colleges in my state have an abysmal graduation rate-less than 55%. A good reason why this is so, is because they enroll people who have no intention of being real students-they go to college because its a pleasant interlude between highschool and getting a job-parental oversight isn’t there, and you can drink yourseld silly. I see no reason why the taxpayesr should be forced to susidize such people.

[BrainGlutton]

@Steve MB

The Soviet Empire satellites after WWII were not “under seige” from anyone other than the (firmly communist) Soviet Union itself.

What do I win?

Well, let’s see . . . Cuba has never been besieged by anyone but the U.S. since 1959 . . . the Poles might have resented those damned stupid arrogant Russians in their country, but any nuclear missiles aimed at their soil were American . . . no, you lose.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Have some free time this morning BrainGlutton?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bobotheoptimist

Allowing people to protect their own property or lives is not the same as repealing all laws, for crying out loud. There would be recourse other than violence, but even now the police have no responsibility to protect the individual.

Ermmm . . . yes, they do, Bobo. Part of their job (and a responsibility they share with the fire departments and other emergency-response services) is to protect individuals from dangers of all kinds, regardless of whether or not those dangers flow out of criminal activity. Would it be any different in a Libertarian America?

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

In some cases, A Libertarian America wouldn’t be so bad. We wouldn’t have the War on Drugs, and education DOES need some overhauling (I disagree with it being trashed completely, though). I’m all for using money wasted on the drug war to make life better, but I’m not convinced how civil rights, the environment, and Big Business’s footprint getting larger, not to mention wage disparity get solved.

Of course, to be “solved”, one has to assume they’re a “problem”. If it’s not seen as a problem in the first place, then it wouldn’t have any special meaning assigned to it. This might be another stumbling point for me.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Meant to include a -

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@ralph124c

Well, you may be correct. But my experience as a teacher was that there were a significant number of “students” who did not want to be in school. They made no effort to learn, and impeded other students, by disrupting the classroom, interrupting others, and generally being a nuisance. My point is: why coerce these kids into staying in a place they don’t want to be? I’m all for allowing students to opt for other training-like trade schools-just keep them away from serious students.
We in the USA, think that being in school “makes” you a student-which is simply not true. This extends to the university level-the state colleges in my state have an abysmal graduation rate-less than 55%. A good reason why this is so, is because they enroll people who have no intention of being real students-they go to college because its a pleasant interlude between highschool and getting a job-parental oversight isn’t there, and you can drink yourseld silly. I see no reason why the taxpayesr should be forced to susidize such people.

Leaving “going to school” as a decision left to the kids is going to end badly. If you leave it with the parents, it’s still ending badly, but not AS badly.

[Bobotheoptimist]

@BrainGlutton

Ermmm . . . yes, they do, Bobo. Part of their job (and a responsibility they share with the fire departments and other emergency-response services) is to protect individuals from dangers of all kinds, regardless of whether or not those dangers flow out of criminal activity. Would it be any different in a Libertarian America?

Cite? The police, at least according to the Supreme Court (as I understand the rulings) have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen - see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, as one for-instance

Supreme Court has several times ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but protect society as a whole.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Menocchio

In all realism, here’s what I see happening:

Education:
Public schools must now compete with private schools subsidized with publicly-funded vouchers. Virtually all children who can migrate to these public schools, which vary widely in quality, as some would be based on experimental pedagogical techniques that seem attractive to parents but don’t necessarily work, and others would be founded more on ideology and religion than education, and still others would operate by virtue of being cheap and marginally better than the public schools. All of these would have the luxury of being able to reject and underperforming, troublesome, or special needs student they don’t want. All of these could find education elsewhere, if there’s one local and their parents can afford it even after the voucher, but many of them would fall back on the shoulders of the public schools. The public schools, now with less money and less teachers (on the plus side, the average teacher would probably be paid more at the private schools), and still burdened with the worst the district can give them, would crumble even further, but I admit wouldn’t dissolve entirely. The bar for higher education would become higher, as government subsidized loans and grants for college tuition fade away.

Net result: Better education for some, worse education for others.

Roads:
Stay exactly as they are. Sorry folks, but only the most wide-eyed ideologues actually want privatized roads. Industry, retail, emergency services, private citizens, even the freaking military are all so dependent on the modern highway system that they wouldn’t dare try to clog it with tollbooths or costly GPS transponders (which, btw, would raise a whole host of privacy concerns troublesome to a Libertarian state). Everybody wants public roads, we just dicker about where they go or who gets the contracts to build and maintain them. Funding may shift more towards gas tax and tollbooths on the larger interstates (not city roads), rather than general funds.

Food:
Prices increase. A portion of federal subsidies makes it back to you at the grocery store, after all. Quality decreases. Never underestimate the American public’s tolerance for shoveling complete crap into their mouths. The market will provide options for those willing to look and able to pay for high quality foods, and we’ll never fall back to The Jungle levels, but the average person’s diet will become worse by a non-trivial degree.

Medicine:
Here’s the only place where the term “chaos” is at all applicable IMHO. With the FDA gone or severely cut down, market forces and tort law are now the ultimate arbiter of drug quality. Medical associations and insurers (including the charitable ones) would eventually work out some system, but it’d take a considerable amount of time before all the competing factions were merged. The meantime would be pretty shaky, and I’d predict doctors and insurers would be very hesitant to prescribe anything that’s not absolutely tried-and-true to anyone. I wonder how the ultimate result, the big certifying body, will differ from the FDA as currently configured. Drug companies will still have to jump through hoops to get them to sign off on anything.

Drugs:
Hate to say it, but I don’t see the situation changing much here anyway. Pot will be legal and common, but nobody wants heroin around. It may be technically legal, but legitimate business won’t touch it. That leaves the same gangs that are selling it today, at practically the same prices. This means the same level of attending violence, and related enforcement and incarceration. You can’t lock up someone for possession, but you do need to go after the gangs shooting at each other or the junky who robs people for his next fix.

Labor:
Unions loose whatever legal protection they had, but regain their importance and purpose. Workers will suffer quite a bit before organized labor is able to bounce back, but it eventually will.

Corporate:
Less regulation means more Enron-style hijinks. Oh sure, they’ll fall apart sooner or later, but not before they cause a lot of suffering to their employees and stock holders.

So really, not that different from today. If you’re doing alright financially and have no trouble watching labels, you may be better off (except for the medical thing, that’d bite everybody on the ass). But the majority would be doing a fair bit worse. Still not the total collapse some above are predicting.

Assuming the zealots wouldn’t have free reign and that the situation wouldn’t get “worse”, I think you’re pretty much correct.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bobotheoptimist

Have some free time this morning BrainGlutton?

[shrug] It’s quiet today at the library reference desk. And I hadn’t reviewed this thread for days.
Putting all this in perspective: Here’s a (presumably) Lib slogan I’ve sometimes seen on message-buttons at SF conventions:
DEMOCRACY IS THREE WOLVES AND A SHEEP VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR DINNER
It’s clever . . . but it’s a lie. In real life, democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner – because in real life, the sheep outnumber the wolves and that’s the only advantage they’ve got.

And there’s more than one kind of wolf. Some wait patiently for you to walk past an alley . . . and some wait patiently for you to walk into their offices . . . and the biggest wolves can eat you by remote control from their offices, before you’ve ever seen their faces or learned their names.

[Bobotheoptimist]

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

Sorry, the last line in my previous post was lifted from the above. Not a direct quote, but close enough.

[Der_Trihs]

@BrainGlutton

Putting all this in perspective: Here’s a (presumably) Lib slogan I’ve sometimes seen on message-buttons at SF conventions:
DEMOCRACY IS THREE WOLVES AND A SHEEP VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR DINNER
It’s clever . . . but it’s a lie. In real life, democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner – because in real life, the sheep outnumber the wolves and that’s the only advantage they’ve got.

Not really. The wolves always outnumber the sheep, because the sheep become wolves when they have the numbers and opportunity. And thats one of the major reason why a pure majority rules democracy is a bad idea. The tyranny of the majority is just as bad as the tyranny of the minority.

And it’s also a reason why we do need a strong government; to make sure there is as little opportunity or necessity as possible for the sheep to go wolf.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bobotheoptimist

Cite? The police, at least according to the Supreme Court (as I understand the rulings) have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen - see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, as one for-instance

Supreme Court has several times ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but protect society as a whole.

I meant that protecting individuals is a “duty” of police officers (and of firefighters, etc.) in the sense of being part of their job description, not a legal “duty” in the tort-law sense, i.e., something you can be sued for failing to perform. I think the SC in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez and similar cases was merely acknowledging that the state cannot reasonably be expected to do its job perfectly all the time, as its officers have limited resources and cannot be everywhere at once. (But the concept of such a “duty” is not entirely irrelevant in all circumstances – see the “duty to rescue”.)

[Little_Nemo]

So – is there a downside to any of that?

Personally, I don’t see China and Iran as being role model nations. I think most people would agree with me on that but your opinion may differ.

[BrainGlutton]

@Little Nemo

Personally, I don’t see China and Iran as being role model nations.

So what? They can hardly do worse damage as regional hegemons than we have done as a global one; and our taxes will go down.

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

Well, let’s see . . . Cuba has never been besieged by anyone but the U.S. since 1959 . . . the Poles might have resented those damned stupid arrogant Russians in their country, but any nuclear missiles aimed at their soil were American . . . no, you lose.

Ability of USSR to control Poland – pretty much absolute (the late Gerald Ford to the contrary notwithstanding).

Ability of US to control Poland – pretty much zip.

QED.

[Steve_MB]

@Der Trihs

Not really. The wolves always outnumber the sheep, because the sheep become wolves when they have the numbers and opportunity. And thats one of the major reason why a pure majority rules democracy is a bad idea. The tyranny of the majority is just as bad as the tyranny of the minority.

And it’s also a reason why we do need a strong government; to make sure there is as little opportunity or necessity as possible for the sheep to go wolf.

This is more or less equivalent to asserting that this is the reason we need to beat old ordnance with crowbars, so there is little opportunity for it to just up and explode some day.