Why I'm Not 100% Libertarian Anymore

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa

Well, show me a voluntary situation that works. If 90% of the community pays for garbage service. The 10% will dump wherever thay can. So who pays for that cleanup?

It is in the details where your system fails.

The system is working right here, where I live. It is not failing. The system under which you advocate fails regularly, much more often than the one here.

To my knowledge, there is no perfect system. The reason my system is better is that the state is not authorized to shoot people that disobey or fail to cooperate.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fastpat
[BThe system is working right here, where I live. It is not failing. The system under which you advocate fails regularly, much more often than the one here.

To my knowledge, there is no perfect system. The reason my system is better is that the state is not authorized to shoot people that disobey or fail to cooperate. [/B]

So if it is working, what about the 10% that dumps wherever they want. What is your system's answer?

How is the state authorized to shoot people that fail to cooperate?

[Moses]

I think fastpats point is that in a libertarian society, you will have as much order (and safety) as you wish to buy. Privatization of fire and police services is not that difficult to comprehend. The service would likely improve with increased accountability.

Even privatization of highways and other public works is not unreasonable, but do you really want to live in a country with no national parks? No health care for the poor? No food for impovershed elderly? Until there is evidence that private charity could adequately fill those needs, I'm not yet ready for pure libertarianism.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Moses
I think fastpats point is that in a libertarian society, you will have as much order (and safety) as you wish to buy. Privatization of fire and police services is not that difficult to comprehend. The service would likely improve with increased accountability.

Even privatization of highways and other public works is not unreasonable.

I think it is all unreasonable and incomprehensible. It is in the details that answers have to come out. So far no answers to specifics, just a broad sweep of generalities.

[Moses]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I think it is all unreasonable and incomprehensible. It is in the details that answers have to come out. So far no answers to specifics, just a broad sweep of generalities.

I live in a county that buys police services from a nearby city. When we were unhappy with the service, we contracted with a different city. I have no problem at all vizualizing privatization of police and fire services.

[stevepaa]

But, you as a county bought police services from the city in the county.
The libertarian view is for each person to buy such service. Any collective buying as a county is again by taxation of the unwilling.

Yes, I can see privatization of services, but everyone would be taxed to support the decision made by the majority. That is just a small tweak on the current system. It is not the libertarian view I read in Pat's responses.

[Moses]

It's just a short hop from public funding to private. If too few folks support police services, you will have fewer services. It's your choice. That's the point.

Presumably local communities could "tax" provided that residence in that community is "optional".

[ChrisBennet]

Privately supplied services can work fine. An independent water company supplies my city's water for example. They are a monopoly. They own the pipes in the street. I have no choice but to use them. The city acting on my behalf "protects" me from water company.

Throughout history, men have found that the cooperative arrangement they had with their neighbors didn't scale up. Once they started to become victims to predators be they individual thieves or the "robber barons" of the day they saw the advantages of some sort of government that institutionalized a rule of law, enforced it - and collected taxes. The mine workers aren't going to have any leverage negotiating with the mine without some sort of government for example. That's if they were lucky. If they weren't lucky, the most powerful private entity became the defacto government.

It's basic human nature that individuals are very poor at protecting common resources ("the commonwealth"). While everyone in a commune may agree not to go to the bathroom near the water source or hunt the animals in the forest to extinction, this sort of arrangement has failed time and time again to work when scaled up. It probably stops working around the time you don't know everyone in the community.

Failure to recognize basic human nature is what doomed Marxism. Great in theory, very poor in practice.

-Chris

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
I think fastpats point is that in a libertarian society, you will have as much order (and safety) as you wish to buy. Privatization of fire and police services is not that difficult to comprehend. The service would likely improve with increased accountability.

Indeed there would be an increase in accountability. That's the primary reason that private police services are the fastest growing segment in policing today. If I contract with a private police service, and call them to come for a reason, there's is no sorry we can't come right now because we're arresting juveniles engaged in street racing. They come out.

Even privatization of highways and other public works is not unreasonable, but do you really want to live in a country with no national parks?

Yes, actually, I do. There are number of private parks in America; I'd like to see all of them privatized. Would there be fewer of them, possibly, probably, I don't think we know; but there wouldn't be a president who can declare millions of acres a national monument to lock up coal reserves and make those held by supporting investors more valuable as result, which Bill Clinton did with the Grand Staircase swindle.

No health care for the poor? No food for impovershed elderly? Until there is evidence that private charity could adequately fill those needs, I'm not yet ready for pure libertarianism.

Private and Parochial charities can handle those tasks. Since you want to contribute to that effort, and I do not, and millions of people agree with you who would also presumably contribute; and would have a lot more discretionary income to contribute; that's how it would be funded. I believe charity begins at home; so would preffer to fund my extended family's requirements, which I cannot do at the level I wish because much of my money that would go to that is taken and given to others, whom I do not know, after sufficient funds are skimmed off by government employees.

By the way, as a cohort, the elderly are the wealthiest group of Americans. There is no reason at all why the young should be funding any of their, and at some point my, needs. That's immoral. What is already aqpparent to anyone wishing to look is the fact that the bulge in the python of baby boomers won't be able to demand a smaller and smaller group of the young support them due to lack of planning, or worse, simply because they want to be maintained at the expense of others.

[stevepaa]

I see, but once the method of TAX is used, it is no longer libertarian by any stretch.

I see only gated communities in the suburbs and walled off areas in the cities from this endeavor.

You could not shop in my area unless you paid an entrance fee?

[stevepaa]

"If I contract with a private police service, and call them to come for a reason, there's is no sorry we can't come right now because we're arresting juveniles engaged in street racing. They come out."

No, they would have the same response issues as now. They can't come out because all their men are already responding to other clients.

[Moses]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet

Throughout history, men have found that the cooperative arrangement they had with their neighbors didn't scale up. Once they started to become victims to predators be they individual thieves or the "robber barons" of the day they saw the advantages of some sort of government that institutionalized a rule of law, enforced it - and collected taxes. The mine workers aren't going to have any leverage negotiating with the mine without some sort of government for example. That's if they were lucky. If they weren't lucky, the most powerful private entity became the defacto government.

It's basic human nature that individuals are very poor at protecting common resources ("the commonwealth"). While everyone in a commune may agree not to go to the bathroom near the water source or hunt the animals in the forest to extinction, this sort of arrangement has failed time and time again to work when scaled up. It probably stops working around the time you don't know everyone in the community.

Failure to recognize basic human nature is what doomed Marxism. Great in theory, very poor in practice.

-Chris

I agree completely. Privatization of most public services will likely result in better value, but pure libertarianism could well ravage the environment and common resources.

[Rodeo]

Pat's calling himself a libertarian, but I don't think he is. I thing he's an anarchist. And I think his system would last all of five minutes, until some strongman came along with the resources and ruthlessness to subjugate all of the people Pat just "freed" from the government.

Maybe Pat himself is planning on picking up the pieces. Whoever is fast enough and smart enough and rich enough to fill the void will be handsomely rewarded, at least until someone faster and smarter and richer comes along.

No thanks.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by snowman


Police can easily be privatized, as it actually is for most gated communities and the like. Such protection is actually preferred as public police cannot prevent crime, only react to it.

These private 'police' are there generally there to make sure noone leaves their car in the driveway, or mows the lawn too infrequently. If there is ever an actual crime committed they call in the real police.

I think they only take on a fraction of the responsibilities that a municipal police force would have.

[ubiquity0]

One downside I see to the Libertarian view is the bills
Each month you would receive letterboxes full of bills itemizing every mile of road driven on, every hour of your kids' teachers' time and charge for each sheet of paper used in school, every flush of the toilet. It could be an accounting nightmare

After all, if these quantities were averaged out amongst all users of a particular service then you may end up paying for more than you actually used, or paying for less (stealing).

And what about a scenario where a developer wishes to obtain an entire city block of houses to demolish & redevelop, but doesn't want to make the generous offers to the owners that are required to entice them to move. Couldn't he just purchase the surrouding streets from the street company and close them off? With no access to the houses the properties would be worth nothing to anyone but the developer owning the street, and the occupants would not be able to live in them.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Pat's calling himself a libertarian, but I don't think he is. I thing he's an anarchist.

That's true, but libertarianism becomes anarchism if it's completely adhered to. Most libertarians know that there are many who can't give up coercive government completely, which is what you describe below. Libertarianism mostly describes an economic system while anarchism mostly describes a political system. They are interconnected, as expected.

And I think his system would last all of five minutes, until some strongman came along with the resources and ruthlessness to subjugate all of the people Pat just "freed" from the government.

Libertarians don't go about freeing anyone, that's what various fascists and socialists do now; like George W. Bush, Lyndon Johnson, F. D. Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. That's what the non aggression principle is all about. That does not imply pacifism, in fact most libertarians believe in strong, vigorous self defense, defense of family, neighbors (voluntarily), and even nation.

Maybe Pat himself is planning on picking up the pieces. Whoever is fast enough and smart enough and rich enough to fill the void will be handsomely rewarded, at least until someone faster and smarter and richer comes along.

No thanks.

What you describe cannot be proven by any historical event, or scientific inquiry (many have tried), so while it might be interesting, it's no more than fantasy.

[Rodeo]

Well, Pat, it's true that I don't know if your motivations are simply to get the government off your back, or something more sinister. I just know that your "system" of no laws, no controls, and no help of any kind from "big brother" would create a massive power vacuum.

It's hardly "fantasy" to believe that someone or something would fill that vacuum. Would those that seized power be better or worse than what we have now?

I'm betting worse. A lot worse.

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Pat's calling himself a libertarian, but I don't think he is. I thing he's an anarchist. And I think his system would last all of five minutes, until some strongman came along with the resources and ruthlessness to subjugate all of the people Pat just "freed" from the government.

Maybe Pat himself is planning on picking up the pieces. Whoever is fast enough and smart enough and rich enough to fill the void will be handsomely rewarded, at least until someone faster and smarter and richer comes along.

Originally posted by fastpat
What you describe cannot be proven by any historical event, or scientific inquiry (many have tried), so while it might be interesting, it's no more than fantasy.

A revolution that frees the citizens also weakens the control of the State. Historically the state usually succumbs to an "opportunistic infection". History is repleat with examples of what commonly happens when "the yoke of the oppressor is thrown off":

French revolution -> Napoleon becomes emperor
Marxist revolution in Russia -> Stalin/communist dictatorship
Cuban revoltion -> Fidel Castro's dictatorship

The power vacuum after a revolution is very strong. This is what made George Washington's voluntarily leaving office (when many were clamoring for him to be king, etc) and going back to his farm so historically unusual.

IMO anarchism reflects a selfish desire to not sign the social contract. That sort of thing is understandable when you're a child i.e. blaming your parents for the lack of control you have over your life, "I didn't ask to be born", etc. Once you get a little older it becomes apparent why we have rules. Even Good People are going to pour their antifreeze down the storm sewer without a vigilant government to enforce the rules.

If you are a Loser at the Game of Life, chucking all the rules won't make you a Winner when new rules get drawn up (and they surely will).
-Chris

[fastpat]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
A revolution that frees the citizens also weakens the control of the State. Historically the state usually succumbs to an "opportunistic infection". History is repleat with examples of what commonly happens when "the yoke of the oppressor is thrown off":

None of which apply here. All were to change government, not to remove it.

French revolution -> Napoleon becomes emperor

A real revolution to replace an unquestioned emperor with an unquestiioned rule of the proletariat, all based on Rousseau's Social Contract about which Voltaire stated that it makes one want to crawl around on all fours. The so-called American revolution wasn't so much a revolution as it was merely a secession from a foreign state. The day to day application of common law changed little; as opposed to the shredding of the fabric of law in France and elsewhere.

Marxist revolution in Russia -> Stalin/communist dictatorship

The Revolution in Russia had it's basis in the same revolution in France, just 134 years later. Marx used Rousseau's work as a basis for his own, adding his own terminology which adjusted Rousseau's to coincide with events brought about by the industrialization of europe. The deposing of the Czar resembles the removal of the French king in almost an uncanny way.

Cuban revoltion -> Fidel Castro's dictatorship

A planned Marxist Revolution from the start, out of place with the other two above. A lot of the Marxist revolutions were a product of the US government alliance with the Soviet Union during the 1940's, and the romance with Marxism by the American collegiate intelligensia of the 1930's, that continues today.

The power vacuum after a revolution is very strong. This is what made George Washington's voluntarily leaving office (when many were clamoring for him to be king, etc) and going back to his farm so historically unusual.

There's a lot more to that story, so it's mostly out of place in this discussion too. The Federalists staged what amounted to a bloodless coup de etat as it was, and Washington, and the rest of the Federalists, knew that their coup was tenuous at best, so tenuous in fact that the Alien and Sedition Law was passed in an attempt to quell resistence to it. That propelled Jefferson, an Anti-federalist, into office.

However, you're talking revolution here, I am not.

IMO anarchism reflects a selfish desire to not sign the social contract.

No, as Ayn Rand wrote, and no I'm not an accolyte for her, no man owes another man one moment of his life. There is no social contract, that's an invention to justify enslavement.

That sort of thing is understandable when you're a child i.e. blaming your parents for the lack of control you have over your life, "I didn't ask to be born", etc. Once you get a little older it becomes apparent why we have rules. Even Good People are going to pour their antifreeze down the storm sewer without a vigilant government to enforce the rules.

Nonsense, all that is is a rationalization for a ruling elite.

If you are a Loser at the Game of Life, chucking all the rules won't make you a Winner when new rules get drawn up (and they surely will).
-Chris

I had to laugh at that last observation of yours, it's so pedantic and trite, and so much the product of modern socialist schooling.

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
The power vacuum after a revolution is very strong. This is what made George Washington's voluntarily leaving office (when many were clamoring for him to be king, etc) and going back to his farm so historically unusual.

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
There's a lot more to that story, so it's mostly out of place in this discussion too. The Federalists staged what amounted to a bloodless coup de etat as it was, and Washington, and the rest of the Federalists, knew that their coup was tenuous at best, so tenuous in fact that the Alien and Sedition Law was passed in an attempt to quell resistence to it. That propelled Jefferson, an Anti-federalist, into office.

So Washington (probably the most popular US president in history) stepped down because he thought he'd get kicked out office? Or are you saying that his leaving had something to do with the Alien and Seditions Acts that were passed by the subsequent administration after he left office?

Enjoy your fantasy world Pat.
-Chris