Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra
Libertarians have extolled libertarianism and libertarians all over this forum. Can any libertarian offer any reservations he has with the philosophy?
Those who are expert in it certainly have studied where it went wrong; where it was misapplied.
|
What a good question, and I would gladly respond to the primary flaws of libertarianism.
Really, the primary weakness of libertarianism, is the environment. The problem is that individuals can have an impact on others, which is difficult to quantify or redress. The only mechanism proposed by libertarians, is through the courts. Basically, if someone is doing you harm, you can sue them for damages.
This really creates three problems. First, it would require a considerable increase in the use of, the cost of, and the power of the courts. Secondly, if the court decided to rule that money was owed for damages, it would be difficult to prescribe an appropriate level of damages, that wouldn't require considerable human opinion. For instance, if a judge or jury hated a specific company or industry, they may seek to be far more punishing of it, than they would a company or industry that they preferred.
And thirdly, the weight of the court system would be primarily focused at large/noticeable people or enterprises. For instance, a large-scale production facility burning or releasing some type of pollutant would be easily noticeable, and thus be sued. But individuals or small facilities, that were more decentralized, releasing the same pollutants, would go relatively unnoticed. For instance, people obsess about carbon dioxide being released by corporations. But everyone releases carbon dioxide by just breathing. And thus, larger and more active people produce larger amounts of carbon dioxide. Let alone people who use wood-burning fireplaces, or who are clearing trees off their property.
Even if it was provable that carbon dioxide caused global warming or droughts or weather changes. And if you could prove that warming caused damage to property or property values, along the coast or farms or whatever. It would be difficult for those parties to actually recoup those damages by suing.
The only possible way to resolve the issue. Would be for the person to effectively sue everyone. And each person would pay a percentage of the total damage, related to the percentage of damage he did. Which might be possible to quantify for large industries, but would be nearly impossible to quantify on the individual level(you know, running a wood-burning fireplace, which I chop myself).
And because these damages would be so widespread, and the cost per-person so small, you would practically have to create a "government" institution just to handle it. Which would inevitably be taken over by special-interests, hoping to use it to their economic advantage.
Other issues with the environment would include, water resource issues. Such as the diversion of water for irrigation and other uses(negatively affecting those downstream, who could potentially "lose their water). But also underground water resources, like aquifers, potentially being drained, which would impact millions of individuals and farmers.
Beyond that, there are wildlife/nature issues. While I think in libertarianism, there would most certainly be a web of privately-owned "parks", where wildlife(such as bears, wolves, alligators, etc) would be able to run freely. I would argue that, the number of wild animals in general, would drop significantly. And a significant amount of the land that remains undeveloped as national parks, or wildlife areas. Would probably become much more heavily developed.
Then of course there is the ocean, which cannot effectively be divvied up through a system of property and property rights, like you can with the land. The result could be a drastic reduction in the amount of "wild" sea animals. Especially large sea animals, such as whales, which could bring them to the point of extinction.
While it is practical to have sea "farms" for fish and other seafood. It really isn't practical to prevent the extinction of say, the blue whale, without some mechanism for their protection. Because unlike elephants or lions or whatever else, you can't really keep them in zoos or other private facilities.
Beyond that, libertarianism will generally be inconvenient. The primary protection from abuse in libertarianism, is massive decentralization of power(both private and public). And the reason why decentralization is important, is because it provides "freedom of movement". Where if you disagree with what the conditions around you, and you believe that there are better conditions somewhere else. You would just leave where you are, and go somewhere else. Of course, the problem with arguing that freedom of movement solves everything. Is that it requires people to get up and move from their homes to somewhere else. Most people aren't interested in having to move as a way of dealing with potential problems.
Furthermore, there is the problem of movement itself. If for instance, all of the roads were privately owned. Then you could effectively become "trapped". If those who own the property between where you are, and where you want to go, refuse to allow you to travel across it. For instance, what if you **** off all your neighbors?
Even if these problems can be addressed in a way that is seemingly agreeable to most parties. The problem is that, since these problems can't be resolved by some principle or mathematical formula. Then you aren't really creating a system of government with strict limitations. In the end, the only limitations to government are what the people place on it. And since the people usually aren't that interested in limiting the government if they believe they have and will retain the power. Then libertarianism isn't so much a principle, but rather just a political leaning.
The best definition of libertarianism is really "a government that does only what is deemed absolutely necessary". Of course the problem is, what does absolutely necessary even mean? What current government programs might be deemed necessary by some, and unnecessary by others?
As I mentioned before, the environment is a major cause of concern in regards to libertarianism. But most libertarians want the EPA abolished, as well as many other parts of government that deal with the environment. But it might be argued convincingly that the government does need to play a role in regulating things like the air and water. So then the question is, what kinds of regulations are necessary?
The point is, even if somehow there was a "movement" towards libertarianism. There still wouldn't be any agreement on the role of government. And the people would still be broken into political parties, who would call their opposition big-government radicals, or right-wing nutjobs.
And a great case of that, is the disagreement over abortion. Which is really a disagreement over what defines life. Because one of the primary responsibilities of government is to protect one "person" from being harmed by another "person". If a fetus is a person, then the government has a responsibility to protect it.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
