Libertarianism in action.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see this as an indictment if libertarianism so much as I see it as an abject failure of government to provide for the public good.

Except for the most ardent libertarians and anarchists, there is a a general acceptance that some amount of government is necessary to a well functioning society, and the purpose of that government is to provide for the public good--specifically doing those things that benefit all of us, but for which it is in no one's direct commercial interest to provide. The obvious ones are defence, security and public law, health, education, currency and the financial system.

Now that's not to say that a commercial interest can't participate in those systems--most doctors practice as private enterprises, but government's role is to ensure that everyone has access to health care, not just those who have the financial capacity to pay for the commercial service.

Didn't pay for fire protection, didn't make personal fire protection arrangements, home burned down. Makes sense.
If nobody pays should the fire service just put out people's homes when they happen to be on fire regardless of their funding? How is that sustainable?
Should services be provided to everyone while funds are taken at the barrel of a gun, or should people make agreements of service mutually?

Last edited by Asmodeus on 06 Oct 2010, 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If voluntary subscription doesn't work, then forced taxation. Most fire services are supported by forced taxation through the property tax.

ruveyn

Give three concrete and specific examples of -public- good as opposed to some individual's good. Are the any individual goods that are common to ALL people in the society. Name three.

Whenever anyone says "public good" or "social contract" or "fair share" I have to fight the urge to reach for my Uzi.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 06 Oct 2010, 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One approach or the other is used. Why should the choice be denied?

It shouldn't.

ruveyn

Excellent.

It seems like the majority of people who label themselves as 'conservative' or 'libertarian' only agree to the first three. According to them everything else should be private.

And who are you gonna shoot? If you want to go off and live in the woods eating nuts and berries and spearing gophers you're free to do that.

Actually, now that I've spent some time pondering the issue I'm a bit more on the fence. I can see situations where charging a fee and denying protection to people who choose not to pay the fee makes sense. If someone decides to build a cabin out in the middle of the wilderness he/she obviously can't expect all the public services he/she would be entitled to if they were living in a more densely populated area.

1) Currency.

A complex society cannot function in an environment where there is not a medium of exchange and a system for regulating that medium.

2) Administration of law.

Both public law and private law require a system of arbitration and enforcement. It is pointless for any two people to make a contract if neither of them has a way of ensuring that the other will perform his obligations.

3) Public safety.

The existence of a force, authorized by law to protect the territory of the country and the citizens thereof from armed agression from within (policing) or without (armed forces) ensures that there is a reasonable prospect that my investments and your investments and the investments of people's pension funds will not be looted.

Effective Israeli tech
Do people have the right to live without being forced to pay for it if they do not wish for outside "assistance", regardless of location?
Or are they financially enslaved to contribute by location, regardless of whether they want service or not?
I feel this is no false dichotomy, given the 2 options stated before.

Last edited by Asmodeus on 06 Oct 2010, 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Currency can be replaced by any trade commodity agreed upon by the parties to a transaction. It is unjust that a government insists that all debts, public and private be paid with their legally counterfeited confetti.
Administration of Law is not a public good if the law is unjust.
Public Safety. I might buy that. Preventing individuals from imposing undue or unreasonable hazards upon others seems like a reasonable thing for governments to do. Too bad they do this function rather poorly.

One out of three is better than I would have expected.

ruveyn

If you want to know the truth, no. There is no "rights". If one wants to argue that the "public good" is an incoherent concept, then I can also argue that "rights" do not exist. We don't get to choose the location in which we are born, the genes we are born with, or whether we have a genetic predisposition to develop a certain kind of cancer. Nature doesn't grant us "rights" and if God exists, neither does He.

Word! We are what we are and we live with what we live with.

ruveyn

A lot of people seem to have missed this part of the story:

So he did not live in the community whose fire department he called, however as Dox pointed out, he thought he could get the service whether he paid for it or not. It is a hard way to teach the lesson that if you want a service you have to pay for it, but it seems it had do be done or the neighbor would have stopped paying.