The Libertarian "State"

[Seth]

You're still in the 1700s Seth. Your ideas will work in a horse and buggy economy in an untamed land.

Well, since you know practically nothing about my ideas because you've not bothered to explore them I'd have to say that your opinion is worth exactly what I paid for it.

[JimC]

I think that most western governments are a little too prone to applying too much in the area of social control, and not quite enough in regulating the big financial sharks.

Regulation is what makes the financial sharks big. "Too big to fail" regulations - okay, technically, designation as a systemically important institution - are a case in point.

The problem is NOT "regulation" per se, it's HOW government goes about regulating and WHAT the actual purpose (as opposed to the advertised purpose) of the regulation is. Intervention by the government with the purpose of ensuring honest trade (not "fair" just honest...caveat emptor and all that) and policing against force and fraud is perfectly appropriate. Intervention by the government to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace is not, even if the ostensible purpose is to make things "better" in society.

Too many people are simply unable to distinguish between the two different types of regulation (just as they cannot or will not distinguish between taxation to run government and redistributionary taxation) and incessantly throw up strawman and red herring arguments by conflating the two together and then accusing Libertarians of advocating no regulation whatsoever. This is simply willful ignorance.

What about building regulations to ensure that they don't become death traps in fires, or simply fall down? Regulations to prevent the discharge of toxic waste into waterways?

The list could go on. The trick is to ensure that regulations are there to prevent genuine harm, and are not simply part of bureaucratic empire building or over-coddling, and again, societies will find some optimum level. We are all free to argue for change in either direction (and a healthy debate on this, with many views expressed, is a damn good thing), but in the end, you or I don't get to decide the final mix, it comes as a consequence of democratic action of one kind or another.

[Seth]

I think that most western governments are a little too prone to applying too much in the area of social control, and not quite enough in regulating the big financial sharks.

Regulation is what makes the financial sharks big. "Too big to fail" regulations - okay, technically, designation as a systemically important institution - are a case in point.

The problem is NOT "regulation" per se, it's HOW government goes about regulating and WHAT the actual purpose (as opposed to the advertised purpose) of the regulation is. Intervention by the government with the purpose of ensuring honest trade (not "fair" just honest...caveat emptor and all that) and policing against force and fraud is perfectly appropriate. Intervention by the government to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace is not, even if the ostensible purpose is to make things "better" in society.

Too many people are simply unable to distinguish between the two different types of regulation (just as they cannot or will not distinguish between taxation to run government and redistributionary taxation) and incessantly throw up strawman and red herring arguments by conflating the two together and then accusing Libertarians of advocating no regulation whatsoever. This is simply willful ignorance.

What about building regulations to ensure that they don't become death traps in fires, or simply fall down? Regulations to prevent the discharge of toxic waste into waterways?

The list could go on. The trick is to ensure that regulations are there to prevent genuine harm, and are not simply part of bureaucratic empire building or over-coddling, and again, societies will find some optimum level. We are all free to argue for change in either direction (and a healthy debate on this, with many views expressed, is a damn good thing), but in the end, you or I don't get to decide the final mix, it comes as a consequence of democratic action of one kind or another.

Yes, regulations that control "exported harms" such as you mention are a valid exercise of government power even under Libertarianism. How society gets to those regulations is also important. "Democratic action" is not inherently or inescapably good. Far too often it's exactly the opposite, which is why the American system cannot be defined as a "democracy." We use democratic processes for some of our decision making but the Founders realized perfectly well that democracy unconstrained is worse than despotic dictatorship, for a despotic dictator can be overthrown, but the tyranny of the masses can be impossible to resist.

Libertarianism simply does not accept the argument that the decisions of the majority are axiomatically moral, ethical or benign, a position of skepticism that is well-founded by literally all of human history. Being focused first, but exclusively on maximizing individual liberty and upon minimizing coercion (the use of force) to the maximum extent possible by anyone, including the majority, while supporting voluntary, honest and responsible relations between individuals (no initiation of force or fraud), Libertarianism holds that the needs (or wants) of the many do not axiomatically outweigh the needs of the few. But this is not in fact, as the ignorami would have you believe, a declaration that Libertarians don't believe in government, order, regulation or honest conduct or that the needs or wants of the individual axiomatically outweigh the needs of the many. Libertarianism is not about "rugged individualsm" or "selfishness" and in fact depends upon the better aspects of human nature for its success. What it does is to RESPECT individual rights, particularly and explicitly the right of the individual not to be coerced against his will to labor or sacrifice his property for the "common good" as the a priori position from which society proceeds. This does not mean that Libertarians are either blind to or unwilling to participate in achieving "common good" works, be they roads or sewer systems or anything else, it just means that they eschew the use of force, particularly government force, to compel people to participate in such efforts against their will. On the other hand, Libertarianism also supports the notion that if the individual does not participate in the public good, that individual has no right or authority to enjoy the public good that results, because to do so without contributing is perpetrating a fraud on those who did contribute.

Libertarianism is not, nor has it ever been the pastiche or strawman concocted by its detractors, most of whom are deliberately and willfully ignorant of Libertarianism to the point of gross intellectual dishonesty.

[JimC]

Well, you can argue the position, and see the extent to which it is taken up.

If it is dismissed by your dreaded "majority", either put up with it, or go out in a Waco style blaze of gunfire...

[Seth]

Well, you can argue the position, and see the extent to which it is taken up.

If it is dismissed by your dreaded "majority", either put up with it, or go out in a Waco style blaze of gunfire...

Once again you resort to the fallacious appeal to common practice rather than engaging in any sort of rational discussion. That smacks of gross ignorance.

[JimC]

Well, you can argue the position, and see the extent to which it is taken up.

If it is dismissed by your dreaded "majority", either put up with it, or go out in a Waco style blaze of gunfire...

Once again you resort to the fallacious appeal to common practice rather than engaging in any sort of rational discussion. That smacks of gross ignorance.

Well, are you assuming you have a right to do anything other than assert your opinion?

Of course, that opinion should indeed be stated, and go into the witches brew of human opinions, as one amongst millions.

After that, will you assert that your political opinion has some sort of privileged position, and should trump all others?

If so, elitist you are...

[Seth]

Well, you can argue the position, and see the extent to which it is taken up.

If it is dismissed by your dreaded "majority", either put up with it, or go out in a Waco style blaze of gunfire...

Once again you resort to the fallacious appeal to common practice rather than engaging in any sort of rational discussion. That smacks of gross ignorance.

Well, are you assuming you have a right to do anything other than assert your opinion?

Nope.

Of course, that opinion should indeed be stated, and go into the witches brew of human opinions, as one amongst millions.

After that, will you assert that your political opinion has some sort of privileged position, and should trump all others?

If so, elitist you are...

Not at all. It's just my opinion that your posts smack of gross ignorance and an irrational fear of engaging in reasoned debate.

[rainbow]

The problem is, Seth.
Where do you draw the line between state control and personal freedom?

Libertarians become very vague when details are required.
We all would be happy to "let be" in an ideal world, but we don't have an ideal world.

[piscator]

Appeal to common practice. Libertarian World would indeed be ideal. or at least ideally commensurate with one's ability to pay as he went.

[piscator]

Take for example an individual who wished to dump a large quantity of dioxins and polychlorinated benephyls for personal enrichment. Since the needs of the many would emphatically not outweigh the desires of this individual, he would be free to place these harmless materials wherever convenient. He could simply buy a portion of a recently decommissioned public school or National Park, and dump tankerloads on the ground. It will soak into his surface estate within a few hours, and then he could commence with his strip mall or housing development untroubled by building codes or other regulatory interference, and he could freely dismiss complaints from neighbors as appeals to common practice. It is, after all, his land, and the brave new Libertarian world has little time for the way these things were done under the old paradigm of collectivization.

[piscator]

You're still in the 1700s Seth. Your ideas will work in a horse and buggy economy in an untamed land.

Well, since you know practically nothing about my ideas because you've not bothered to explore them I'd have to say that your opinion is worth exactly what I paid for it.

I've explored your "ideas" briefly and found them to have little regard for anything other than your personal interpretation of the intents of people you've never met and who died long before you were born, handwaving centuries of Constitutional authority, legislative action, and Supreme Court decisions as mere fallacies of common practice in your quest to insert your onanistic oughts into eminently practicable and organically derived iss.


In short, anyone with the time for your ceaseless compulsive expatiations is either a paraphillic masochist, or perhaps a mental health professional getting paid for the indignity. One wonders where you find the time to lubricate your vast arsenal of exotic firearms...

[Blind groper]

The idea that 'liberty' is all important is refuted by reality. Here is an experiment. Go to Tacloban in the Philippines, and tell 100 people that they are lucky because they have liberty, and see if you will survive. I suspect that after the first few, someone will kill you. The residents of Tacloban do not want liberty. They want rice.

Even excluding purely physical resources, there are other things besides liberty that are of importance. Even the corrupt politicians known as American founding fathers knew that - "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." To life and happiness I would add "fairness" (eliminating the special treatment of an elite) and "security" (to which the starving people of Tacloban would raise a cheer).

I am not saying liberty is unnecessary. It is a very needed part of any modern democracy, along with all other human rights. But it is not paramount. It is simply one of many values that are needed to make life worth living.

[Seth]

The problem is, Seth.
Where do you draw the line between state control and personal freedom?

Libertarians become very vague when details are required.
We all would be happy to "let be" in an ideal world, but we don't have an ideal world.

The line is drawn at the point that the individual initiates force or fraud against others. What you need to understand is that "force or fraud" is a term that's capable of dealing with complex interactions, which is why I continue to suggest that you consider examples and allow me to describe how the principles of Libertarianism address them. That is the best way to get an honest view of Libertarianism in action.

[Seth]

Appeal to common practice. Libertarian World would indeed be ideal. or at least ideally commensurate with one's ability to pay as he went.

Not really. Nothing in Libertarianism prohibits credit or lending.

[Seth]

Take for example an individual who wished to dump a large quantity of dioxins and polychlorinated benephyls for personal enrichment. Since the needs of the many would emphatically not outweigh the desires of this individual, he would be free to place these harmless materials wherever convenient. He could simply buy a portion of a recently decommissioned public school or National Park, and dump tankerloads on the ground. It will soak into his surface estate within a few hours, and then he could commence with his strip mall or housing development untroubled by building codes or other regulatory interference, and he could freely dismiss complaints from neighbors as appeals to common practice. It is, after all, his land, and the brave new Libertarian world has little time for the way these things were done under the old paradigm of collectivization.

Wrong. Your example is one of the initiation of both force and fraud. First, the individual is free to do with his land whatever he wishes to do provided that he does not export harm (initiate force) or engage in fraud in doing so. Dumping toxic chemicals on your land is not per se prohibited, and it's something that we do even today...if the materials are handled and stored properly so that they do not seep or escape from the property in any manner.

If the owner of land needs to dispose of such chemicals then it's his complete responsibility to ensure that absolutely none of the materials escapes, ever, to the harm or detriment of others. Take the Love Canal for example. Clearly that dumping violated Libertarian principles because zero effort was made to contain the chemicals to the private property, which resulted in exported harm and therefore was an initiation of force, and worse, when the property was later developed, the original owners did not reveal the presence of these uncontained (or contained) hazardous materials to prospective buyers, which constitutes fraud. Those actions justify the use of force in self-defense and even retaliation (in the form of damages) by those who were assaulted and defrauded. How exactly that defensive force is applied varies with the circumstances, from individual action in immediate self defense to collective action in several different ways to either recompense a harm that has occurred or to prevent such injury.

Libertarianism also holds that the perpetrator of force or fraud is TOTALLY responsible for the consequences of that action, and that there are no excuses permitted, such as "I didn't know the chemicals would seep off the property." This allows the victims of such actions to claim compensation for every injury, even if it completely bankrupts the offender. In cases of personal injury, such actions are not only subject to civil judgment, but to criminal judgment. Thus, the executives of, for example, PG&E in the famous hexavalent chromium contamination in California made famous by the movie "Erin Brockovitch," it would not be sufficient that only the corporation had to pay the largest class-action settlement in history, those in charge of the company, and anyone who participated in the dumping of the toxic materials would be PERSONALLY liable both civilly and criminally. Libertarianism holds the individual completely responsible for his actions just as much as it seeks to protect the individual's right to exercise his liberties, and it doesn't excuse anyone on the basis that they work for a "corporation." If you exercise control over a company then it is your absolute responsibility to make sure that your underlings do not violate the rights of other individuals, because in Libertarianism both you, the CEO and the individuals within the company who physically perpetrate the wrong are personally liable.

You misconstrue Libertarianism as being a philosophy that rejects all regulation of private conduct in the interests of individual liberty. This is not, and never has been the case.

But thanks for providing an example for analysis.