The Libertarian "State"

[MrJonno]

As far as I'm aware no one else here apart from Seth claims to be a libertarian, there is almost certainly no either here who doesnt think freedom isn't a good thing (I don't like the use of the word 'liberty' its just too associated with wankers)

Libertarianism does put personal freedom first and that is quite bluntly evil

[Pappa]

As far as I'm aware no one else here apart from Seth claims to be a libertarian, there is almost certainly no either here who doesnt think freedom isn't a good thing (I don't like the use of the word 'liberty' its just too associated with wankers)

Libertarianism does put personal freedom first and that is quite bluntly evil

Evil?

Don't we all put personal liberty first quite a lot of the time? I'm sure even you would be a little bothered if you were incarcerated for some obscure reason by the government.

[Tero]

Vonnegut had a sci fi short story where the population of the planet worked from jail. All but the ruler.

[Mysturji]

As far as I'm aware no one else here apart from Seth claims to be a libertarian, there is almost certainly no either here who doesnt think freedom isn't a good thing (I don't like the use of the word 'liberty' its just too associated with wankers)

Libertarianism does put personal freedom first and that is quite bluntly evil

[JimC]

There is something to be gained from "libertarianism-lite", which could be a philosophy of careful examining whether governments and bureaucracies are being unnecessarily intrusive into people's lives, with no valid or important reason. There are clear and rational reasons for many government regulations, programs and taxes, but equally there is waste and unnecessary bureaucratic layers. A cool, unemotional eye needs to be cast over the system, and pruning done where possible.

[Blind groper]

I suspect that most people here (excluding Seth from 'most') would agree with me that a course between the extremes is best.

[Ian]

I suspect that most people here (excluding Seth from 'most') would agree with me that a course between the extremes is best.

An ironic statement.

[Tero]

So what they want is a Libertarianish state? Where you just pick what part of Gubment you want to apply to you.

[Warren Dew]

I'd be interested to hear the Libertarian rebuttal, if it's forthcoming.

I'm sure the two or three libertarians here can give you four or five different rebuttals. You may think you have political arguments here, but it's nothing compared to when libertarians are the only ones in the room! Here's one of mine.

Let's start from the beginning. He's wrong about externalities. Externalities are an infringement on rights. Since it's difficult to assign external costs - that's why they're externalities - they can be better handled by internalizing them. Thus, they are one of the two things that can legitimately be taxed, as a way of externalizing the cost of externalities.

Natural resources are the other thing that can be legitimately taxed. Natural resources belong to the world as a whole, so those who appropriate them for use should pay their value to the world as a whole. Thus, there should be taxes on extraction of natural resources, as well as taxes on land area.

Notice how there are no direct taxes - no income taxes, no personal property taxes - just what used to be called "excises". Despite that, appropriate taxes on externalities and land will actually provide comparable state revenue to what the state gets today. The real problem is, how to spend all this revenue. For that, we have to look at the appropriate functions of government.

If there are multiple nations, one function would be national defense, though in a perfect libertarian world, no one would bother with war, so that would involve minimal costs. A court system would be needed as the default court system for contract enforcement. It would also be required for tort law - basically, violations of the nonaggression principle. One can also argue that the government should also provide a police force, though perhaps not the only one.

Then there is the issue of monopolies, which are able to apply economic force due to lack of competition. There is little evidence for monopolies forming in competitive markets unless they have help from the government - which a libertarian government would of course not give - but in noncompetitive markets - natural monopolies - government involvement would be justified. Antitrust enforcement is the answer to the "rich get richer" problem, because as long as the market is competitive, innovative small players will be able to defeat less innovative incumbents as technology advances.

There are two types of natural monopolies. One is monopolies that are physically natural, mostly the surface street network. The two dimensional topology of the earth's surface means that there can only be one surface street network. The other is monopolies that are constructively natural - that are monopolies only after they are constructed. Before the invention of wireless telephony, wired telephony was an example of this.

Constructively natural monopolies are self limiting, because the barrier to entry is not infinite. If the monopoly charges more than twice the cost of production, a second player can make money by overbuilding the infrastructure and taking half of the market. As long as there is antitrust enforcement, the incumbent monopoly cannot prevent this by selectively dropping prices. Since prices are limited to a small multiple of cost, constructively natural monopolies are not a serious problem.

Incidentally, the article at the link is incorrect with regard to constructive natural monopolies never being competitive in practice. In fact, in most areas in the industrialized world, the traditional telecom "last mile" is extremely competitive. There may be only one player that provides that last mile using obsolete copper wires, but there are generally two or three that provide it using wireless cells.

Physical natural monopolies, such as surface streets, can then be provided by the government directly, out of revenues from externality and natural resource taxes. The extra revenues can then be returned to the general population using some reasonable apportionment mechanism.

[Tero]

Who owns land in the libertarian state?

[Warren Dew]

Who owns land in the libertarian state?

You stopped before my third paragraph, didn't you?

[rainbow]

Who owns land in the libertarian state?

Land is just one issue, but I'd like to extend that to all resources.
What about water?
Do people having property on a water course have the right to extract the water, pollute it, divert it?

With a government legislating the use of a resource, how would abuses be prevented?

[MrJonno]

As far as I'm aware no one else here apart from Seth claims to be a libertarian, there is almost certainly no either here who doesnt think freedom isn't a good thing (I don't like the use of the word 'liberty' its just too associated with wankers)

Libertarianism does put personal freedom first and that is quite bluntly evil

Evil?

Don't we all put personal liberty first quite a lot of the time? I'm sure even you would be a little bothered if you were incarcerated for some obscure reason by the government.

I put ensuring myself and everyone else has housing,food,water and medical care comes first and as long as personal freedoms don't get in the way of that then I have no problem with them. In other words the so called 'right' to property and not pay taxes is always inferior to ensuring your neighbour isnt starving.

If you choose to live an a society (and it is a choice) you can do anything you want as long as the society you live in is not damaged by your actions . You don't get to decide if society is damaged or not.

Libertarianism is evil because it thinks the individual is more important than the millions of others that you are linked to for survival.

I consider libertarianism to be worse than both fascism and communism as at least the last two at least pretend to want what's best for most people while libertarianism doesn't give a shit

[Blind groper]

The French had a more balanced view.

Liberte, egalite, fraternite.
(Freedom, equality, and brotherhood)

They made freedom important, but not the only thing that was important. Equality and brotherhood (My apologies to the women here. Will you accept that I include you in the sexist term 'brotherhood'?) means caring about others. Freedom does not mean selfishness. Individual freedom does not remove the duty to help others. The French have their version of socialism, so that others are helped.

[MrJonno]

The French had a more balanced view.

Liberte, egalite, fraternite.
(Freedom, equality, and brotherhood)

They made freedom important, but not the only thing that was important. Equality and brotherhood (My apologies to the women here. Will you accept that I include you in the sexist term 'brotherhood'?) means caring about others. Freedom does not mean selfishness. Individual freedom does not remove the duty to help others. The French have their version of socialism, so that others are helped.

I agree with that, a decent society needs all of those. It doesn't mean France or anywhere else always lives up to it but its what we should all aim for