Libertarian Plan
 

I was a bright-eyed college philosophy student roughly three decades ago, and loved to talk about social issues. Some things don't change much, huh? In those discussions I was introduced to libertarianism. My roomate was a very bright libertarian/atheist who used to absolutely kick my ass at chess. He crushed me regularly, and I came back for more. Again, some stuff doesn't change.

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?

In any movement, the most extreme elements tend to gain control because they claim to be the most "pure". A "pure" libertarian would probably embrace the extreme positions that you outlined. These people are never going to gain any political power outside their own movement. More muted libertarianism, is more akin to what you find in many Republicans, who aren't part of the "compassionate Conservative" wing...

We have a fee based system now. Its called taxes. You buy gas and the taxes from that are supposed to pay for the roads. Does it work? Well, considering the corruption and graft going on these days we could do a lot better...

We still need a two term limit on all politicians, then they go and get a job.

JoeA

So, we could use term limits to ensure that good people, leaders who are responsible, could not stay long? Term limits sound like a convenient alternative to an educated/informed/involved electorate. It's the garage door opener method of disciplining gubmint. How would term limits improve the quality of our public representatives? How might it reduce the quality?

Corruption and graft? First of all, gubmint corruption and graft can be fixed if you want. You own it, and you control it, and if graft and corruption are found and we don't like it, out they go. Not so for commercial organizations. Graft and corruption are their normal, usual modus operandi.

Joe. Joe, buddy. Just between you and me. You don't really think that putting private organizations in charge of government utility commerce will reduce corruption, do you? Does anybody?

Libertarianism comes in degrees, I think.

For me, it's more along the lines of "leave me the f*ck alone, I'm not hurting anybody." Want to get high? Fine. Just don't endanger me while you're doing it. Oh, now you want off the stuff and need rehab? Tough rocks, pal. You made your choice.

I have no problem with the gov't providing some degree of infrastructure. However, your tollroad example holds no water. NY/NJ is all toll roads. Isn't expecting the roads to be zero usage cost is like expecting free tap water or free electricity?

Sure about that? Why do you complain about our current administration so much, then? Don't you own it and control it?

Got to run to the airport, so I can't give this thread the response it deserves. In the mean time, check this out....

http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Libertarianism is about asking how we can reduce government size and scope to solve problems, rather than expecting that the government solve our problems for us. We accept that government is necessary, but we also accept that it is inherently inefficient. So government should only be used in moderation....only where the free market can't solve a problem.

With regard to your questions about police and roads, etc..... What if there were several large, national private corporations that specialized in providing city-wide security? The free market could ensure that these corporations are efficient. The logic is that they would be more efficient than a government-run monopoly.

Hmm... private security firms instead of cops. Interesting idea. So how would they secure contracts? Cost and performance, like everyone else. Performance would have to measured in some way... let's see... number of arrests, conviction rates, stuff like that, measurable metrics. So now we have the cheapest private security firm available, performing to their measures. The profit motive has entered into the law enforcement equation. Think today's photo enforcement for red light violations that has been turned over to the private sector. Shortened yellow light intervals, to the point of causing accidents, so they can nab more people. Think of that on a far grander scale. Yikes.

We are already awash in accusations that our law enforcement pads the pockets of folks in the private sector. Bad enough that the good old speed trap fills the public coffers. In addition to the red light camera scam making private sector businesses rich, we have the privatization of the prison system in some states. The more beds are full, the more money they make. The accusations run along the lines of the fat cat prison owners "lobbying" law makers and law enforcers to further their interests - keeping those beds full. Now imagine a prison owner that has a part interest in a security firm that just won a large contract in a big city. Yee-haw...

Good discussion so far. As always, Jeff the Liberal makes good sense. I wonder why "liber"tarians are considered to be virtually the opposite of "liber"als. Frankly, and speaking as one of the foremost liberal characters here, I'm pretty comfortable with some libertarian goals, and nobody, and I mean NOBODY here is more protective of liberty and freedom than I am.

I'd say socialism and capitalism are both inherently inefficient. Gubmint has no competition and that's pretty much used as the sole, single justification for why it should be avoided. But competition creates its own inefficiencies. First, you WILL need a gubmit regulator to watch over the behavior of the capitalists. Regardless of what industry you're talking about and if you start talking about privatization of utility services like roads and water and power and law enforcement, I'd vigorously argue that we will need to take regulation to a whole new level.

Capitalism requires profits, whereas gubmit does not.

While it is elegant and cute to pretend that capitalism always results in the lowest cost, we know for a fact this is not true. Capitalists LOVE to charge more money, and their agenda usually includes shaping the industry in just such a way that you pay more rather than less. Bundling, for example. Who feels like their telephone bills are lower now than before deregulation?

Nevermind. I am hoping that, rather than having a pure ideological fistfight here, we could take a look at what a libertarian imagines to be a good way of reducing gubmint. Specifics. Not just to pick it apart (although that's fun), but also just to explore what desired adjustments separate the Libertarian from, say, the Republican, or the Democrat.

If we elected all Libertarian candidates everywhere, what changes should we expect?

1) Kill the IRS. Go to a flat tax, national sales tax, or raise import, religious org, and corporate taxes to the point where income taxes are unnecessary. Preferably the latter.

2) End the Nanny State's War Against Drugs (TM). It is 100% unsuccessful, wastes LE talent better used elsewhere, increases the crime rate, overflows our prison system, and alienates our Latin America neighbors (not really a problem other than the fact that one of them is Venezuela!).

3) End RE taxes. Paying for the privilege to live on land that you own? Give me a break.

4) Oh, and if I were King, I'd make all health insurance and hospitals 100% not-for-profit. For-profit presents a clear conflict of interest.

Supe,

http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

There they are...will/would they be true to their stated platform, difficult to say: the reps and dems haven't been.

Power corrupts...

Cool. Thanks Seahawk. I've got to motor, but I'll take a look at the link.

Blue, I cannot disagree with any of that. 'course, real estate tax revenues would need to be replaced if we want schools, but your suggestions sound good to me.

Re: Libertarian Plan
 

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."

As long as there are populists (democrats) this will never happen. Their bread-and-butter is deceptively offering a free lunch. This is why liberaltarianism will never work.

My admitedly limited understanding of the Libertarian movement has alway been one of a minimalist government. The "Liber..." part of their name standing for "liberty" in the sense that "liberty" means a less intrusive government. I'll have to read Seahawk's link to see how accurate my impression is.

The mainstream political spectrum today runs from ideals of "more" government to "less" government when we try to boil it down to some very simplistic quantitative measure. That's way too simple, of course, but a lot of folks think in those terms. To introduce "no" government, or to try to reduce it to where it appears as such, has never really entered the mainstream discussion. Most of us realize that is not an option. Maybe that is what has kept the Libertarians from being a part of the discussion.

On the face of it, no government presence in their lives probably appeals to a lot of people. People that have never really thought this one through. Yes, it is frustrating to deal with the government on an individual basis. Yes, I believe too many areas of our personal lives are regulated. We could certainly use improvements. But to "thow the baby out with the bathwater" and eliminate most government, turning most of their functions over to the private sector? If Libertarians really think that is a good idea they will never convince most of us. If they think in terms of simply eliminating most government services and functions, never to be replaced by a private sector equivelent, most folks would not stand for that. Some services and functions maybe; those are the current boundaries of the red vs. blue debates. But all or most? That's not a desire expressed by most of us.

I could see oversight alone of a system transfering government functions to the private sector becoming more of a burden, and more open to graft, than our present system. Imagine government every bit as big as it is today. Imagine it truly not doing anything "value added", but rather serving as no more than an oversight service. Doing nothing but administering their contracts to their "subcontractors". You think they are "innefficient" now...

You running for office? You have my vote!

Re: Re: Libertarian Plan
 

As much as I enjoy disagreeing with you, the verity of these words is stunning. So who runs the show in Libertarea, Libertarianylvania, what would you call it anyway? So in this mythical land, how is the civilization organized? If no government, what?

Re: Re: Re: Libertarian Plan
 

That is a gross over simplification.

Once upon a time :rolleyes: some guys had the good idea that a Federal level government do just a few simple tasks . . .to tie together states . . .states that would have their own governments . . . governments which would compete with the other states, to provide the best balance - yadda yadda. . ..

That all worked really well for a while. Now, though, we have a lopp-sided (powerful) Federal government focused on extracting massive taxes . . .for massive power.

I'm inclined to think "good, responsible leaders" and "politicians" are mutually exclusive terms.

Then again, I'm one of the Gen Y cynical generation.