Good, because I want a crack at them too.
I agree, mostly, with Sam Stone’s explanations above, though I find myself fairly far afield from Libertarian. [And by the way, it is easy to slip into thinking his views define libertarians because of his name and his emphatic views. But if you look over this thread you will find that there are several libertarians posting here who have very different views of what it’s all about. That’s not a dig at Lib, I’m just pointing out that libertarians are as diverse as any other group. Oh, and one more thing, libertarian views are held by the majority of Americans, they just don’t usually put that label to it: A Bill of Rights, elevating the desires of the individual over those of the government - even a democratically elected government, can be called nothing if not libertarian; a government divided against itself to moderate its power and limit it to specifically defined spheres of interest is also libertarian at its heart, serving to protect against a self-aggrandizing government; we have one of the freest markets in the world, and that is despite enormous pressures to the contrary - it is through the ceaseless efforts of many Americans, arguing to a receptive audience, that our market has remained as free as it is. I don’t want to get too sidetracked, but America is in many ways a very libertarian country in practice, if not always by label. My question as a libertarian is, are we losing this character, is that okay, and if not what should we do about it?]
On to the questions.
1 - Do you favor a purely fee-for-service government, or do you believe that taxation is an appropriate function for government?
No. Taxes are okay, but should be the minimal necessary to perform the functions of government outlined in the constitution. The mechanism for assuring this is as open to debate in libertarianism as it is in every other political ideology.
2 - Do you believe that the functions normally performed by the government (police, military, etc.) should be performed by firms in the private sector?
Some yes, some no. The military and police are almost certainly not workable as private organizations. On the other hand, where in the constitution is the mandate for the NEA? For NASA? I’m all for art and space exploration, but as I outlined earlier, I think the government should involve itself with these things by - at most - finding ways to encourage the private sector to pursue them.
3 - Do you accept the premise that many services normally associated with government are likely to be natural monopolies?
I’m not sure what you mean, can you be more specific? What exactly is a “natural monopoly” and what does it have to do with libertarianism? I could guess, but I’d rather hear it from you.
4 - Do you accept that it is in the best interest of every busninessperson to be a monopolist, and that philosophical preference for “free and competitive markets” do not overrule the desire for high profits for an individual, and that therefore companies and individuals cannot be trusted to regulate themselves (i.e. some outside agent – either competitors or another agency must take action) to prevent anti-competitive behavior?
I partly agree with this. Certainly the temptations of making a lot of money can lead people to abuse others, either directly or indirectly. The government should regulate these things in the direction of keeping the market free and competitive. There is nothing in that vector that runs counter to libertarianism, as I understand it. Monopolies are destructive to competition and are thus an abuse of others; they should be illegal just as surely as robbery, and of course, regulating large-scale commerce is one of the legitimate roles of government outlined in the constitution.
5 - Do you accept that when a firm has a monopoly in one sector, they are frequently able to leverage that strength into dominance in an unrelated sector, to the deteriment of consumers, disrupting the “natural” self-correcting behavior of the market? Do you agree that this is a bad thing?
You’re obviously thinking of a specific example; what is it?
*6 If yes to 2, 3, 4, and 5, isn’t that a big problem? * As usual with complex questions, the answer is not a simple “yes” or “no”. There are problems and they should be dealt with. I’m pretty much for the way they’re being dealt with now, more-or-less. I’d change a few minor things, but they aren’t really relevant to your questions. Furthermore, I feel this way because I’m libertarian. Why, exactly, do you think monopolies are bad, if not because they interfere with the freedom of the market; more to the point, why do you think keeping the market free is worthy of our concern given that, as a nonlibertarian, you have no faith in its ability to function to our greater good? Shouldn’t you be in favor of a highly controlled market? - the government could control a few large monopolistic corporations much more easily than thousands of small ones.
(shortened to save space) I’m going to explain the “free rider” problem… You and I both own widget factories across the street from each other. The widget business is fiercly competitive. The President of the Evil Enemy Country begins threatening air raids. You decide to install a surface-to-air missile launcher at your factory. I hear about your order to SAMs-R-Us, and realize: “Aha! If he detects an incoming enemy plane, he won’t be able to tell if it’s targetting my factory or if it’s targetting his factory – he’ll shoot it down either way, so my factory gets defended for free!”…because you have to buy and maintain your SAM launcher, my factory is more profitable. You sell your SAM launcher to compete. The enemy planes promptly bomb us both.
It is NOT dismissing the example for its hypothetical nature to point out a glaring implausibility: I have unilaterally decided to take on the expense of defense despite the fact that the effect this will have on my viability is easily predictable. I am extremely unlikely to take such action, even in your hypothetical world; much more likely is that I will try to get together with you and come to some sort of arrangement where we share the costs. However, I don’t really disagree with the point I think you are getting at - some functions, like defense, require the resources of society at large and cannot be easily coordinated by a market operating within that society. Fair enough. But this is, at the same time, a ready excuse for the government to pump up its own power beyond what is justifiable or healthy for the citizenry. We must confine the government to those functions that we are sure cannot be accomplished at any other level. These functions are outlined in law, and, not surprisingly, national defense is one of them.
7 - Do you understand that there is a real concern here, or do you intend to dismiss any questions which relate to this thing as a meaningless hypothetical?
See above.
8 - How do you prevent these problems under your system? The current system is very close to mine. Where I differ is outlined above.
9 - Do you conceed that problems like this, and others, can result in what economists call “market failures”?
I’m not an economist. What exactly do they mean by the term? In fact, I’m going to ask you here for a specific cite for a particular economist or school of economics.
10 - Do you agree with Sam Stone when he says “some government may be required here”?
Yep. I realize your questions were originally addressed to Lib, but again, you do your argument a disservice by refusing to recognize that libertarianism contains more moderate views than his.
11 - If yes to 11, who decides what is a market failure and what is not, and who decides how to rectify the situation? What would you say to a legislator who claimed that high unemployment in a particular area was a market failure the required rectifying?
Um, <I
Which right to you think gets violated – the right to produce according to your ability, or the right to consume according to your needs?