Quote:
Originally posted by Superman
Libertarianism sounded good. But today, I am not a libertarian. For reasons I think will come out in a discussion here, if you folks are game. We'll see.
Let's start with police services. A libertarian might prefer a fee-based security system. If you want security then you buy devices, and you engage a company that will provide you with security services. So, cops would be of the "Joe's Excellent Security Services" variety rather than today's cadre of State Patrol, County Sheriffs and City Police. Is this a correct assumption about libertarianism (sure, I'm deliberately goading here)? I'm wondering how this works, and whether security in general would come under better or worse control.
Okay, and if you don't like that example, we can look at roads. Toll-based roads everywhere. What implications would that have for commerce and mobility? Is there any consideration for poor folks, or do they just stay put? Who thinks this would be less expensive? (bear in mind that we currently use a non-profit to administer road construction contracts using private construction contractors) What would be the similarities between this private industry (toll roads to get anywhere and everywhere you have to go) and an industry like cable TV or phone or electric power? I think it would be like those, but with fewer players. Meaning less competition. How much competition can you expect in getting from Los Angeles to San Diego? How many freeways will there be to choose from?
I'm trying to get an idea of what today's libertarians wish for, in terms of an actual platform. what would society be like if you (the libertarian) were Emperor?
|
You should know that there could never be a libertarian
emperor, that's a true oxymoron.
To understand libertarianism certain precepts must if not agreed with, must be understood. L. Neil Smith's
Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a good start.
Another is that all taxes are theft unless voluntary. Proof? Of course, here. If I find 100 needy people and decide to help them by stopping folks in downtown, let's pick Atlanta, downtown Atlanta and taking money from them at gunpoint, but telling those that I take the money from that I will only keep enough to feed myself, buy ammo, and maybe later a better gun; what would nearly all of you call that? Probably armed robbery. So, if 100 people decide to take money from the citizens of Atlanta, that's still armed robbery, correct? The question then becomes, at what point does the taking of money at gun point from those that have it to give to others cease being armed robbery and become ethically and morally acceptable? The answer, which should be obvious, that there is never such a point.
It's always unethical and immoral to take money belonging to others without their consent.
Libertarians don't just want a smaller government, they want no government at all. Supe has stated the old
Democratic Socialist line that
we the people own and control the government. That's not only not true, there's never been a government that didn't grow larger, more corrupt, and more dangerous with each passing year of its existence. Bastiat said that as soon as enough citizens realize that they have sufficient numbers to vote themselves sustenance from others less numerous, collapse is inevitable. America is near that point now. This is an illustration why democracy, another word for mob rule, is a bad idea.
That's enough from me from the moment, except to address the specifics of the police. Private security is the fastest growing area of law enforcement in America. The reason for that is that the police are simply inefficient, politically corrupt, and are growing more dangerous with each passing day and increase of S.W.A.T. members or creation.
I don't know who said it first, but I like the truth in this idea, "No government really is better than our government."