Question for Libertarians and Anti-Big-Government types

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by T0103E

First I'll just mention that I'm one of the "no government" libertarians. I also want you to know that the reason I'm against the state completely is because I think it's simply wrong to use force to impose my will on others, and to take their things without their consent.

That's the main argument. It's like if you saw your friends beat and rob a random person on the street, you wouldn't object to it by listing all the ways that mugging is bad for society, and all the ways that not mugging is good for society. You would just morally condemn it. If they said "Well we need money and other things to survive. Tell us exactly, down to the detail, how each of us will be taken care of if we're not allowed to attack and rob people?", you would probably just say "Well, I don't have the time or knowledge of what's best for all of you personally, but it's just wrong for you to do it. Find another way."

I don't get this point. We live in a society where every adult can vote, so we make collective decisions about how much or little we all agree to give to support public infrastructure and market externalities from our individual earnings.

So, no one's forcing anything without their consent. They consent by living in a society with rules for the common good that we agree upon through representation. That has nothing to do with beating people or whatever analogy you were trying to make.

Safe food, infrastructure, etc.: Reputation would go a long way. You can have multiple organizations that review different restaurants, grocery stores, highways, etc. and recommend the healthy and safe ones. There could even be some type of agreement between companies and health organizations...like, if the public wants to know they can trust a company, one of those health organizations can be allowed in on a regular basis to assess what they're doing. If they're doing a good job, maybe they put their stamp of approval on the products to let people know it's safe. That's pretty similar to what we have now, but the company isn't forced to comply. If they don't allow inspections, people will just be more cautious of them and they may lose business. Again, reputation would be important. It is now, even with government regulations.

This is a terrible idea for entrepreneurship. In your model, only long-established companies would generate business because everyone would be scared to touch food that someone else hasn't served as the guinea pig to test.

I enjoy discovering new restaurants and it would be crippling to the economy if there was no baseline assumption that the food produced met certain standards.

Pollution: The short version of this is that you establish property rights for everyone, so if someone's property is negatively affected by pollution/whatever, they have a claim to be made whole again/reimbursed. If you own part of a river, and the person upstream owns part of the river, that guy could throw waste into it because it would just be passed on to you. The way you would get justice for that is by (1) obviously ask them to stop first, and reason with them, but if that doesn't work, (2) seek a third party to resolve your dispute. If the people in your society believe that pollution is wrong, and that harming the property of others is wrong (which we do), then your neighbor will be made to make things right with you and stop polluting. If they still say "Tough. Go away", you would have the right to use force to stop them because it's in defense of your property (or maybe the organization who handles disputes would handle it). That's kind of the basic idea.

We have that third party; it's called a judicial system.

Anyway, your model is exceedingly simplistic. Who has to pay for global warming, which can't be pinpointed to a specific property? Or pollution that a property owner pumps into the air well above other property owners, with the result of contaminating the general area?

Or, how do you deal with the pollution from automobiles? Seen how polluted Paris and Beijing are these days? What third party or parties are going to arbitrate for all the property owners impacted by the millions of cars polluting? What standards will ensure that arbiter is not corrupted or paid for by one property owner to reap greater benefits?

Our system isn't perfect, but at least it acknowledges market externalities and has a standard of practice for mediating disputes.

Emergency systems/safety net: First, realize that nobody is obligated to help you. That being said, most people will anyway. Look at all the people who care about the poor and vote for a welfare state. Look at all the people like me who think the welfare state is disastrous for the poor, but will donate to people who ask for help or to organizations that we trust. Government welfare removes the incentive to maintain good relationships with family, friends, and community. You can just burn all your bridges and get bailed out. Without that guarantee, you would need to treat others well in order for them to want to care for you. Also, the question implies that government programs are helping those in need right now...it's doing a horrible horrible job of helping people. It takes money from people, filters it through layers of bureaucrats and politicians, and whatever is left is given to some who may actually need it, some who are cheating the system, and many who just don't have much incentive to work their way out of the situation they're in. It's easy for them to just take the free money and stay poor. Just cut out the middleman and let people donate more efficiently.

It's simply not possible to scale up private charity to serve the broad-based and ongoing needs of the impoverished. Notably, when the economy tanks people stop giving to charity precisely when needs are the greatest. No, we need a more consistently funded system. I'm not advocating multi-generational welfare but your solution has proven to not work on any sort of a viable scale.

You didn't cover the "emergency systems" portion, such as police and fire. We tried privatizing those services in the 19th century and quickly moved away because it was too chaotic and ineffective.

I appreciate you laying your concept out, but it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny as a valid option at this stage.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by DPolo

Big government is the death of free enterprise that makes this country great !

That's always been a popular bumper sticker slogan, but doesn't really reflect reality. I agree too much oppressive aspects of government can be restrictive, but remember that Silicon Valley exists specifically because of federal investment in research in that area. The federal government was the first large customer of early computer technology that brought enough capital for the private sector and universities to build upon.

Similarly, lots of federal research funding goes to universities nationwide that have turned them into hubs of innovation and vibrant economies. In fact, it's that scientific leadership, combined with our entrepreneurial spirit, that's given the U.S. the advantage it's had in recent decades.

Likewise, our investment in infrastructure with public money - like the Interstate system - has fostered untold private economic growth and commerce. Now, many want to stop making these investments, which is scary for our future.

Our economic growth has always been a combination of public and private investment, even in the railroad robber baron days.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

I don't get this point. We live in a society where every adult can vote, so we make collective decisions about how much or little we all agree to give to support public infrastructure and market externalities from our individual earnings.

So, no one's forcing anything without their consent. They consent by living in a society with rules for the common good that we agree upon through representation. That has nothing to do with beating people or whatever analogy you were trying to make.

People often say that "we" consent, but I don't consent, and many others don't either. You're trying to use the social contract theory, which most people do, but it isn't legitimate. Contracts can't be forced on you for living somewhere, first of all. That isn't how a contract works. Second, it's the same as being born into a mafia-controlled neighborhood, and when you say that the mafia shouldn't be extorting people out of their money - even if they're "protecting" or providing services - you're told "well you consent to them doing it by living here. If you don't want to live under this mafia, go live in a different neighborhood controlled by another mafia." Sometimes they'll also say to go live in the woods or something, but running from the state isn't being free. Slaves could run from their master, but they weren't free until that society stopped treating them like slaves.

This is a terrible idea for entrepreneurship. In your model, only long-established companies would generate business because everyone would be scared to touch food that someone else hasn't served as the guinea pig to test.

I enjoy discovering new restaurants and it would be crippling to the economy if there was no baseline assumption that the food produced met certain standards.

Just to be clear, there isn't any one model or system to be followed. It's just an idea that could be tried. If it doesn't work, keep trying other things...trial and error. That's how progress is made. If the demand for something is there, people will be trying to figure out a way to get it. If you want to stick with what we have now, great. The problem is when others are forced into it at gunpoint and aren't given a choice.

We have that third party; it's called a judicial system.

The problem with it is that it's a) funded by taxation, which is theft, and b) it's a monopoly. Anyone who thinks they could do a better job would be threatened with force if they tried to offer their services.

Anyway, your model is exceedingly simplistic. Who has to pay for global warming, which can't be pinpointed to a specific property? Or pollution that a property owner pumps into the air well above other property owners, with the result of contaminating the general area?

Or, how do you deal with the pollution from automobiles? Seen how polluted Paris and Beijing are these days? What third party or parties are going to arbitrate for all the property owners impacted by the millions of cars polluting? What standards will ensure that arbiter is not corrupted or paid for by one property owner to reap greater benefits?

Our system isn't perfect, but at least it acknowledges market externalities and has a standard of practice for mediating disputes.

It all comes down to who is causing harm to someone else. Global warming is tough, because we don't know why it's happening. Is it caused by humans or not? Everyone has their opinion, but the fact is that we don't know for sure yet. As far as air pollution goes, I'm forgetting the ideas I've heard in the past...I'll have to refresh my memory on that...but I do want to say that if people are polluting the air and it's having a negative effect, there should be people out there making everyone aware of it and convincing them to cut the amount of pollution they're producing. Reason > Force. On a large scale, I've heard the idea of having multiple Dispute Resolution Organizations that compete kind of like cell phone companies. They need to work together and have overlapping networks because people will want to call/text people who aren't using the same company.

Remember what I said in my first paragraph, though...I don't have all the answers. I'm not an expert in every field and I don't know how to run the world. If anyone did, maybe they deserve to be the emperor of Earth. That's a big concept in libertarian thought. Billions of people working to solve problems will do a better job than a small group of central planners who think they know how to organize society.

It's simply not possible to scale up private charity to serve the broad-based and ongoing needs of the impoverished. Notably, when the economy tanks people stop giving to charity precisely when needs are the greatest. No, we need a more consistently funded system. I'm not advocating multi-generational welfare but your solution has proven to not work on any sort of a viable scale.

You didn't cover the "emergency systems" portion, such as police and fire. We tried privatizing those services in the 19th century and quickly moved away because it was too chaotic and ineffective.

I appreciate you laying your concept out, but it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny as a valid option at this stage.

From my understanding, it's a myth that private charity, fire, police, etc. have been inferior to public versions of those. It's one of those things where people will throw out statistics and neither side will end up satisfied because they think the other person's statistics are flawed in some way. I hate to answer without a true rebuttal, but I think it'll be a waste of our time in the end. That leads me back to my main point...

I threw out some ideas that could be attempted just to show that there are alternatives that can be tried. I don't claim that they're the best way, or that everyone should accept them. I just think it's wrong to initiate violence against peaceful people and to take or use their property without their consent. If more people can agree to that, we'll have more minds working to replace the archaic force-based systems with something else. One analogy I like is slavery. You could go back in time and argue that we shouldn't have slaves, and you'll get many of the same responses I get when I argue against government. You may not know all the details of how society will function when slavery is no longer acceptable, but that doesn't stop you from advocating against it. To change my mind, you'd have to argue that there can be legitimate government authority, but I can disprove that logically.

Hopefully you can appreciate where I'm coming from.