Questions about libertarianism

Shelga

My understanding of libertarianism is that it advocates minimal state interference, and espouses the theory that "it's up to you to get rich, and if you do, we won't seek to take much of your money away through tax"- basically, everyone for themselves.

While I like this idea, I'm still pretty confused about libertarianism as a whole. While I disagree with the modern 'welfare state', and the overgrown state of our public sector, I am left wondering what would happen if Ireland was to switch to being a completely libertarian society tomorrow.

Would education, healthcare etc. become privatised? I know there are advantages to such systems but on paper it looks like disadvantaged or middle-income people simply wouldn't be able to afford such things!

Would welfare be scrapped completely?

A friend and I were having a discussion about the state of the economy. She would be more of a lefty, whereas I would consider myself more to the right. When she asked how she would have grown up in a libertarian society (she is the child of a single mother, reliant on the state for an income, grants while in college etc.) I was a bit stumped!

I suppose the crux of what I'm asking is what happens to those who are less well off in a libertarian society?

Apologies for the simple nature of my ramblings, I thought the more politically-inclined here would be able to help me out! :P

Suryavarman

Shelga wrote: »

My understanding of libertarianism is that it advocates minimal state interference, and espouses the theory that "it's up to you to get rich, and if you do, we won't seek to take much of your money away through tax"- basically, everyone for themselves.

While I like this idea, I'm still pretty confused about libertarianism as a whole. While I disagree with the modern 'welfare state', and the overgrown state of our public sector, I am left wondering what would happen if Ireland was to switch to being a completely libertarian society tomorrow.

Would education, healthcare etc. become privatised? I know there are advantages to such systems but on paper it looks like disadvantaged or middle-income people simply wouldn't be able to afford such things!

I would imagine that those things would be privatised. It is possible that pensioners or people with disabilities that have become dependent on Government aid probably wouldn't lose all the aid immediately.

The same would apply for poor children with their education. There would have to be a voucher system for them until the market can adjust to offer cheap/free education.

Would welfare be scrapped completely?

Due to the bad times we are in, I wouldn't think welfare would be scrapped immediately although it would be decreased dramatically. There is some Libertarians that believe in a minimal social safety net although there are others (like myself) that do not believe in a need for a government provided safety net.

A friend and I were having a discussion about the state of the economy. She would be more of a lefty, whereas I would consider myself more to the right. When she asked how she would have grown up in a libertarian society (she is the child of a single mother, reliant on the state for an income, grants while in college etc.) I was a bit stumped!

I suppose the crux of what I'm asking is what happens to those who are less well off in a libertarian society?

As cold as it is to say this, there is a chance she wouldn't be born. In the chance that she was, it is likely that she would have been the beneficiary of charity to provide for healthcare or education. With college she would have to get a part-time job and save up or get a loan or maybe if she was lucky, get a scholarship.

Apologies for the simple nature of my ramblings, I thought the more politically-inclined here would be able to help me out! :P

They didn't seem like ramblings to me! Don't be surprised if the thread descends into chaos and gets locked though

Boulevardier

Such a society would be, in effect, the same as a typical latin american dictatorship - that is, the strongest would rule and devil take the hindmost.

There would be no point in having democracy.

Perhaps the weaker could combine voluntarily to replace the benefits presently provided by the state, but their resources would be poor, and the law would almost certainly come down on the side of the powerful if any dispute emerged.

sarumite

Suryavarman wrote: »

There is some Libertarians that believe in a minimal social safety net although there are others (like myself) that do not believe in a need for a government provided safety net.

What would be the alternative? Obviously charities can pick up some of the slack, but its not really a reliable alternative.

As cold as it is to say this, there is a chance she wouldn't be born. In the chance that she was, it is likely that she would have been the beneficiary of charity to provide for healthcare or education. With college she would have to get a part-time job and save up or get a loan or maybe if she was lucky, get a scholarship.

I am a bit confused by the chance she wouldn't be born part....from my experience young people don't always consider the consequences of their actions.
As for the beneficiary of charity for healthcare or education, its not exactly reliable and assumes a lot. As such, this is my main problem with libertarianism. I find many believe it to be a meritocritous system, however when details such as education are considered clearly it is not.
I think its unfair to punish a child for the mistakes of their parents by denying them a guarenteed base level of education....damn it I am going to use the forbidden word....I think children are entitled to an education. Furthermore I think an educated workforce is better than an uneducated workforce. Assuming someone else will do the job of educating is not exactly a great long term plan to promote an educated population.

matthew8

Boulevardier wrote: »

Such a society would be, in effect, the same as a typical latin american dictatorship - that is, the strongest would rule and devil take the hindmost.

There would be no point in having democracy.

Perhaps the weaker could combine voluntarily to replace the benefits presently provided by the state, but their resources would be poor, and the law would almost certainly come down on the side of the powerful if any dispute emerged.

Libertarians don't tend to call for a private police force. Any corruption that could happen in a libertarian society could just as easily happen in any other society.

Eliot Rosewater

Boulevardier wrote: »

Such a society would be, in effect, the same as a typical latin american dictatorship - that is, the strongest would rule and devil take the hindmost.

Why?

Boulevardier wrote: »

...and the law would almost certainly come down on the side of the powerful if any dispute emerged.

Why?

Suryavarman

sarumite wrote: »

What would be the alternative? Obviously charities can pick up some of the slack, but its not really a reliable alternative.

Charity or a job.

I am a bit confused by the chance she wouldn't be born part....from my experience young people don't always consider the consequences of their actions.

The mother might have had an abortion if she wasn't going to be able to have a child.

As for the beneficiary of charity for healthcare or education, its not exactly reliable and assumes a lot. As such, this is my main problem with libertarianism. I find many believe it to be a meritocritous system, however when details such as education are considered clearly it is not.
I think its unfair to punish a child for the mistakes of their parents by denying them a guarenteed base level of education....damn it I am going to use the forbidden word....I think children are entitled to an education. Furthermore I think an educated workforce is better than an uneducated workforce. Assuming someone else will do the job of educating is not exactly a great long term plan to promote an educated population.

You make it out as if the only way to get an education is in a school, there are alternatives. Parents could home school their children, there is the Khan academy on the internet and there is many educational programmes on the television also. Children could also become autodidacts. Abraham Lincoln is a great example of this, he received 18 months of schooling and then went on to teach himself to become a solicitor and he then became President of the US.

There is of course the most obvious answer in charitably funded schools. Schools might also be cheaper due to different approaches or more efficient running of the school. There is a wealth of education opportunities when the Government steps out of the way.

sarumite

Suryavarman wrote: »

Charity or a job.

I was referring to a safety net, or the lack of one. As such, a job isn't a safety net. A sefety net is there when there isn't a job available. What happens if there isn't a safety net? Lets assume that there is no charity available, then what?

The mother might have had an abortion if she wasn't going to be able to have a child.

Although under a libertarian position, the government wouldn't provide the money for an abortion. Assuming you are against cheap back street abortions that either leads to a government funded abortion program or childbirth. The former doesn't strike me as particularly libertarian.

You make it out as if the only way to get an education is in a school, there are alternatives. Parents could home school their children, there is the Khan academy on the internet and there is many educational programmes on the television also. Children could also become autodidacts. Abraham Lincoln is a great example of this, he received 18 months of schooling and then went on to teach himself to become a solicitor and he then became President of the US.

Seriously you are going to use Abraham Lincoln as your example...really? I mean in the modern age? No offense, but an atypical example of one person from 150 years ago is not the basis for a modern education policy.

Parents home schooling is great if the parent doesn't have to work and is also well educated. I can say for a fact that my mother wouldn't have had the first clue how to teach me trigonometry. If I had been home schooled by her there is no way I would have gone on to get a PhD in chemistry. I will contribute more to society for the rest of my adult life due to getting a reasonable education than I would have otherwise.

A child is entitled to an education.....and that doesn't involve putting them in front of a television, turning it on and walking away. Internet costs money, needs a computer, internet connection, computer skills, literacy, all the things a child does not have. And even if they do get access, the reason we have teachers is not to tell us what is in the book, but to answers questions and explain it to us when we don't understand, something the internet cannot do. Furthermore a child gets more than just a base education at school, there is social skills etc This is the problem with libertarian policies in practice, there is the big picture of 'get government out of education', but when it comes to the actual details they lack a coherent strategy

There is of course the most obvious answer in charitably funded schools. Schools might also be cheaper due to different approaches or more efficient running of the school. There is a wealth of education opportunities when the Government steps out of the way.

Again, charitably funded schools are nice idea.....but again it goes back my fundamental belief that a child is entitled to an education and there is no guarantee that there will be a charitable shool, therefore no guarantee of an education. A wealth of educational oppurtunites does not equal an education. You can't read a book if you don't know how to read.

AhSureTisGrand

This thread can only end well

sarumite

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

This thread can only end well

I was curious about your remark, then I noticed there was already a thread about libertarianism than didn't seem to go to well. Perhaps you are right. As such my the person had questions about libertarianism, I should probably leave it to a libertarian to answer.

Suryavarman

sarumite wrote: »

I was referring to a safety net, or the lack of one. As such, a job isn't a safety net. A sefety net is there when there isn't a job available. What happens if there isn't a safety net? Lets assume that there is no charity available, then what?

They would have to rely on savings they have set up or tough luck really. The likelihood of not having a job or not having family or friends to help you out is highly unlikely though.

Although under a libertarian position, the government wouldn't provide the money for an abortion. Assuming you are against cheap back street abortions that either leads to a government funded abortion program or childbirth. The former doesn't strike me as particularly libertarian.

Abortions can be a relatively cheap operation so I don't think we'll have an epidemic of back street abortions. There is also the option of giving a child up for adoption.

Seriously you are going to use Abraham Lincoln as your example...really? I mean in the modern age? No offense, but an atypical example of one person from 150 years ago is not the basis for a modern education policy.

The work of a solicitor hasn't changed that much in 150 years to rule it a void example. It's not like Abraham Lincoln is the only autodidact that has ever lived. I was using autodidactism as an example of one of many options available to people, an option that many people would be able to avail of.

Parents home schooling is great if the parent doesn't have to work and is also well educated. I can say for a fact that my mother wouldn't have had the first clue how to teach me trigonometry. If I had been home schooled by her there is no way I would have gone on to get a PhD in chemistry. I will contribute more to society for the rest of my adult life due to getting a reasonable education than I would have otherwise.

A parent doesn't need to have a good education to teach the basics of arithmetic, reading and writing. Trigonometry is a lovely idea but how often does the average person use it? If you have a PhD then you are obviously very intelligent and in a Libertarian society you would probably get a scholarship. At the same time a child born into a working class family, even with full funding from the state, is going to go to college nevermind get a PhD in Chemistry.

Will you contribute enough to society with the PhD to have warranted the funding of that PhD?

A child is entitled to an education.....and that doesn't involve putting them in front of a television, turning it on and walking away. Internet costs money, needs a computer, internet connection, computer skills, literacy, all the things a child does not have. And even if they do get access, the reason we have teachers is not to tell us what is in the book, but to answers questions and explain it to us when we don't understand, something the internet cannot do. Furthermore a child gets more than just a base education at school, there is social skills etc This is the problem with libertarian policies in practice, there is the big picture of 'get government out of education', but when it comes to the actual details they lack a coherent strategy

A child is not entitled to an education if it means using force to get it. Who made you an expert on education so that you get decide what an education is? Just because a child learns things from watching television that aren't up to your lofty standards doesn't mean it isn't enough for them. Computers and internet are getting cheaper all the time and are cheap enough for most people to afford, computer skills are easy to come by just by spending time with a computer. Literacy skills can easily be taught by parents or educational programmes on television. There is a wealth of resources on the internet to answer questions and explain problems to children. A child also picks up social skills at home with their parents, when they play with their friends and when they play sports at local clubs.

There's no strategy? I think your missing the whole point of Libertarianism here. There isn't supposed to be a strategy, there is simply meant to be options so that the individual can decide what is best for themselves or their children. We believe that centrally planning does not work and that some politician can't decide what type of light bulb is best for my sitting room or that they can't decide what the best way to educate children that they've never met. If we had a strategy and knew the best way to educate everyone then we would be Socialists.

Again, charitably funded schools are nice idea.....but again it goes back my fundamental belief that a child is entitled to an education and there is no guarantee that there will be a charitable shool, therefore no guarantee of an education. A wealth of educational oppurtunites does not equal an education. You can't read a book if you don't know how to read.

As I said before, a child is not entitled to an education if requires using force to get it. Also schooling does not need an education. If we have Government funding education then Government must also decide what constitutes an education. In that scenario then we will lose all the wonderful alternatives the free market can provide to traditional schooling.

"It is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion" - F.A Hayek

sarumite

Suryavarman wrote: »

Will you contribute enough to society with the PhD to have warranted the funding of that PhD?

Yes.

On Edit: Thinking about, I have contributed more than enough to warrant the funding already.

nyarlothothep

Peter Thiel is proposing to build libertarian ocean colonies, it will be interesting to see how putting this form of libertarianism into practice works out.

http://www.tradenewswire.net/2011/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-of-artificial-libertarian-islands/

matthew8

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Peter Thiel is proposing to build libertarian ocean colonies, it will be interesting to see how putting this form of libertarianism into practice works out.

http://www.tradenewswire.net/2011/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-of-artificial-libertarian-islands/

They'll probably be invaded or something if they can actually make this happen. I highly doubt they can make this work, like any ocean society people try to set up.

R P McMurphy

Don't want to hijack the thread but was watching the documentary Gasland and was wondering in a libertarian society would the government still be charged with developing and enforcing environmental protection. Clearly private enterprise involvement, in resource development, will cut corners to make a quick buck to the detriment of people and the environment in which they are operating

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

They'll probably be invaded or something if they can actually make this happen. I highly doubt they can make this work, like any ocean society people try to set up.

Not sure about invasion....The prinicpality of Sealand is stil going strong since 1967. I believe they have seen a population boom as of alte with a 50% increase (they went from 2 people to 3 I believe).

Suryavarman

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Don't want to hijack the thread but was watching the documentary Gasland and was wondering in a libertarian society would the government still be charged with developing and enforcing environmental protection. Clearly private enterprise involvement, in resource development, will cut corners to make a quick buck to the detriment of people and the environment in which they are operating

Some people think Government should have environmental regulations others think problems can be resolved through private property rights. In the Gasland case everybody affected could bring a class action lawsuit against the gas company to seek compensation.

matthew8

sarumite wrote: »

Not sure about invasion....The prinicpality of Sealand is stil going strong since 1967. I believe they have seen a population boom as of alte with a 50% increase (they went from 2 people to 3 I believe).

I love the idea of Sealand, but it's well located for protection from pirates. A libertarian island in the Ocean not only faces the threat of pilots and NATO (if we enforce the gold standard) but there will be many gold reserves.

sarumite

Suryavarman wrote: »

think problems can be resolved through private property rights.

Could you expand on this?

matthew8

sarumite wrote: »

Could you expand on this?

I imagine he/she is saying that if your property is damaged by pollution you have a right to ask the polluters for compensation.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

I imagine he/she is saying that if your property is damaged by pollution you have a right to ask the polluters for compensation.

I imagine that was the point. I was just checking.

Suryavarman

sarumite wrote: »

Could you expand on this?

As Matthew said, if the property was damaged by pollution then you could seek compensation from whoever caused the pollution. In the Gasland scenario where the water supply was damaged the gas company might have to pay for the treatment of the water supply and pay damages to people harmed by the leakages.

sarumite

Suryavarman wrote: »

As Matthew said, if the property was damaged by pollution then you could seek compensation from whoever caused the pollution. In the Gasland scenario where the water supply was damaged the gas company might have to pay for the treatment of the water supply and pay damages to people harmed by the leakages.

Though wouldn't it just be better to avoid the pollution in the first place?

Suryavarman

sarumite wrote: »

Though wouldn't it just be better to avoid the pollution in the first place?

How are we supposed to do that?

matthew8

Suryavarman wrote: »

How are we supposed to do that?

Too true, a good corporation will know how to get around these pesky regulations fairly easily.

R P McMurphy

Suryavarman wrote: »

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Don't want to hijack the thread but was watching the documentary Gasland and was wondering in a libertarian society would the government still be charged with developing and enforcing environmental protection. Clearly private enterprise involvement, in resource development, will cut corners to make a quick buck to the detriment of people and the environment in which they are operating

Some people think Government should have environmental regulations others think problems can be resolved through private property rights. In the Gasland case everybody affected could bring a class action lawsuit against the gas company to seek compensation.

Problem as per that doc is that the regulations were effective up until companies were made exempt from the provisions. Once this happened they took advantage and the consequences were severe. The people affected can take lawsuits but they have to enter into a costly process and prove that the damage is a result of the companies actions. In other words if you are not wealthy forget about it

Suryavarman

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Problem as per that doc is that the regulations were effective up until companies were made exempt from the provisions. Once this happened they took advantage and the consequences were severe. The people affected can take lawsuits but they have to enter into a costly process and prove that the damage is a result of the companies actions. In other words if you are not wealthy forget about it

This is the problem when some companies get exempt from regulations. If nothing goes wrong then it's alright but the companies that obey the regulations have to incur and expense to meet standards for no reason. Whereas in this case the people affected can't really seek compensation because the companies have been given exemptions. The problem with regulations is that if they aren't well defined and applied all the time, they might as well not exist.

If they all join together the costs won't be as prohibitive and if they win the case the offender would have to pay their legal costs.

sarumite

Suryavarman wrote: »

How are we supposed to do that?

Honestly, I know if I answer this question its going to result in further discussion. Instead I am going to bow out of this thread.

Shelga

Ok I have just read through most of this thread- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056298394

Can open, worms everywhere!

(Still not much clearer about many parts of libertarianism though!)

UsernameInUse

Read this thread on libertarianism; it's massive and should provide enough information to blow your mind.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056268465

UsernameInUse

Shelga wrote: »

Ok I have just read through most of this thread- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056298394

Can open, worms everywhere!

(Still not much clearer about many parts of libertarianism though!)

I don't know whats not to understand.

Think of it this way; Liberals want less big brother in your everyday life, they're pro-choice et. but want to have a huge hand in directing the economy. Conservatives want you to keep to traditional values in your private life, but want a hands-off approach when it comes to economics. Libertarianism is simply the coming together of the best of both worlds. It is simply a philosophy that examines how you can achieve freedom from anyone interfering in your life whatsoever. Therefore, it is socially liberal and economically conservative.

Libertarianism grew out from the left. Bastiat, a classic liberal (libertarian) sat on the left side of the room in the French Assembly fighting the right side, the statist, pro war brigade. The left back then was different from the left today. They were all for the free market and small government - which is still valued in libertarianism today. Libertarianism is not strictly Capitalist, the word itself simply means Anti-Authoritarian. You can find libertarian leftists like Chomsky or Emma Goldman or Spooner. Then you can find Capitalistic libertarians like von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard.

Scofflaw

Suryavarman wrote: »

As Matthew said, if the property was damaged by pollution then you could seek compensation from whoever caused the pollution. In the Gasland scenario where the water supply was damaged the gas company might have to pay for the treatment of the water supply and pay damages to people harmed by the leakages.

And would all companies and individuals have the necessary resources to: (a) identify that pollution is happening; (b) identify the source of the pollution; (c) identify the extent of the damage; and (d) fight the necessary case?

The advantage of the state's involvement is that the poorest and weakest can point out a suspected breach of regulations and the state then takes over identifying whether pollution has occurred, whether damage has been done, who the source is, and then take the case, resulting in mitigation, cleanup, and dissuasive penalties.

Absent such state involvement, it seems to me that the small and humble will in general decide that discretion is the better part of valour, and that there's little point in taking an expensive set of measures with an uncertain outcome. In general, it may simply be worth accepting a certain level of compensation from the polluter rather than attempting to prevent the pollution happening in the first place, and the level of compensation can quite easily be such as to be attractive to both parties.

Further, the damage done to the property of the plaintiff may not be a proper reflection of the damage done to the environment - it's easy to see a case where a motor repair shop gets very little compensation adjudged for an oil leak from the petrol station next door, since it will do very little damage to the motor repair shop's business.

One of the best analogies for the libertarian society is the international level. States can be, and are, voluntarily constrained by international laws they are party to, and by the possibility of being sued by other nations, but the voluntary and contractual nature of international relations is more analogous to a libertarian system than anything else on the planet (including the much-abused 'example' of Somalia, which is by no means a libertarian society). The ideal of libertarianism is sovereignty for the individual in much the sense that nation-states enjoy sovereignty.

Unfortunately, it's easy to see from international relations that the strong do wind up far less constrained, and far more sovereign, than the weak, no matter how equal their sovereignty in principle. One of Ireland's major reasons for being in the EU is that it provides us with equality before the law with larger and stronger nations - and while just as in a non-libertarian society the strong still have advantages, the disparity is much smaller than in the Westphalian model of 'voluntarily' interacting sovereign nations, where the weak can only do what they want as long as the strong don't mind. The eurosceptical may complain stridently about France's calls for Ireland to change its corporation tax rate, for example, but mutual membership of the EU prevents France from deploying its vast panoply of state economic powers (state aids, tariff barriers, import controls) against Ireland to force the issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Geuze

Shelga wrote: »

I am left wondering what would happen if Ireland was to switch to being a completely libertarian society tomorrow.

Would education, healthcare etc. become privatised?

YES. This is not really a big issue, as all primary schools in Ireland (bar 3) are already privately owned. Most secondary schools are also privately owned.

I'd say you mean that they would all charge fees?

In the same way, all GPs are already private, no change there.

Many hosps are privately / not-for-profit, so not much change there either.


More to follow.

Geuze

Shelga wrote: »

Would welfare be scrapped completely?

DEPENDS.

Natural-rights libertarians, e.g. Nozick, would have zero public welfare state.

Empirical libertarians, e.g. Friedman, would have a minimal welfare state.

When she asked how she would have grown up in a libertarian society (she is the child of a single mother, reliant on the state for an income, grants while in college etc.) I was a bit stumped!

The family / church / civil society would provide welfare, rather than the State.[/B]

Example, single mother stays with her parents, etc.

Family provides childcare, while single mother works.

Student borrows to pay fees.

I suppose the crux of what I'm asking is what happens to those who are less well off in a libertarian society?

Apologies for the simple nature of my ramblings, I thought the more politically-inclined here would be able to help me out! :P

....

Scofflaw

Geuze, try to structure your posts so that it's clear which parts are yours and which you're quoting. And try not to use blocks of bold text, because we use that to indicate moderation comments.

moderately,
Scofflaw

whatstherush

Geuze wrote: »

YES. This is not really a big issue, as all primary schools in Ireland (bar 3) are already privately owned. Most secondary schools are also privately owned.

I think your confusing privately owned with private enterprise. While the majority of school land & buildings are owned by religious institutions, their day to day operation is financed by central government. In a libertarian world, their day to day operation would have to be financed by pupil attendance fees.

matthew8

Shelga wrote: »

My understanding of libertarianism is that it advocates minimal state interference, and espouses the theory that "it's up to you to get rich, and if you do, we won't seek to take much of your money away through tax"- basically, everyone for themselves.

While I like this idea, I'm still pretty confused about libertarianism as a whole. While I disagree with the modern 'welfare state', and the overgrown state of our public sector, I am left wondering what would happen if Ireland was to switch to being a completely libertarian society tomorrow.

Would education, healthcare etc. become privatised? I know there are advantages to such systems but on paper it looks like disadvantaged or middle-income people simply wouldn't be able to afford such things!

Would welfare be scrapped completely?

A friend and I were having a discussion about the state of the economy. She would be more of a lefty, whereas I would consider myself more to the right. When she asked how she would have grown up in a libertarian society (she is the child of a single mother, reliant on the state for an income, grants while in college etc.) I was a bit stumped!

I suppose the crux of what I'm asking is what happens to those who are less well off in a libertarian society?

Apologies for the simple nature of my ramblings, I thought the more politically-inclined here would be able to help me out! :P

On Ireland going libertarian tomorrow. No way. It is inconceivable to dramatically change society so much. Tomorrow I would balance the budget, let people get used to it, then next year I would cut spending, taxes and relax regulation gradually so people can cope with the change.

On the environmental issue, some libertarians do believe in environmental regulation, like my favourite Gary Johnson (who non-libertarians hate when I bring him up in an argument). He is a very interesting type of libertarian because he likes to get into the nitty-gritty of policies rather than just talk policy.

Scofflaw

matthew8 wrote: »

On the environmental issue, some libertarians do believe in environmental regulation, like my favourite Gary Johnson (who non-libertarians hate when I bring him up in an argument). He is a very interesting type of libertarian because he likes to get into the nitty-gritty of policies rather than just talk policy.

That's where the devil is, though, down in the nitty-gritty. Almost anyone's policies sound OK in broad outline.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boulevardier

"My understanding of libertarianism is that it advocates minimal state interference, and espouses the theory that "it's up to you to get rich, and if you do, we won't seek to take much of your money away through tax"- basically, everyone for themselves.

While I like this idea..."

Why do you like it? I find it appalling. Implementing it would almost certainly lead to much unnecessary human suffering. That is always the way with attempts to impose pure political dogmas in complex modern human societies.

matthew8

Boulevardier wrote: »

"My understanding of libertarianism is that it advocates minimal state interference, and espouses the theory that "it's up to you to get rich, and if you do, we won't seek to take much of your money away through tax"- basically, everyone for themselves.

While I like this idea..."

Why do you like it? I find it appalling. Implementing it would almost certainly lead to much unnecessary human suffering. That is always the way with attempts to impose pure political dogmas in complex modern human societies.

Why is there this assumption that the government (Who have handed over our sovereignity, burdened future generations with billions of debt and ruined the country) automatically does a better job than human nature? It is delusion of the highest order.

Suryavarman

Scofflaw wrote: »

And would all companies and individuals have the necessary resources to: (a) identify that pollution is happening; (b) identify the source of the pollution; (c) identify the extent of the damage; and (d) fight the necessary case?

The advantage of the state's involvement is that the poorest and weakest can point out a suspected breach of regulations and the state then takes over identifying whether pollution has occurred, whether damage has been done, who the source is, and then take the case, resulting in mitigation, cleanup, and dissuasive penalties.

If pollution is happening and causing damage to their property I doubt it would cost too much to identify that. If the pollution is causing damage to the property then the source will be local, so it shouldn't be too hard to find the source. If the case isn't worth taking on then what's the point of worrying about it?

The disadvantage of the state is that it just passes regulations and mandates instead of assigning a price to pollution as it should. Any time the state does assign a cost (i.e the carbon tax) the revenue just goes toward funding general Government expenses instead of compensating the victims of pollution.

I also believe that just because the state doesn't have pollution regulations doesn't mean the state can't prosecute pollution. As we can't privatise the sky or the oceans, the state can prosecute people who pollute either and use the compensation to deal with the pollution.

Absent such state involvement, it seems to me that the small and humble will in general decide that discretion is the better part of valour, and that there's little point in taking an expensive set of measures with an uncertain outcome. In general, it may simply be worth accepting a certain level of compensation from the polluter rather than attempting to prevent the pollution happening in the first place, and the level of compensation can quite easily be such as to be attractive to both parties.

If both parties are both satisfied with the outcome then what is the point of stopping the pollution? Sure it would be lovely if we didn't pollute and we should try and decrease pollution as much as possible but that doesn't mean we should always do that. If we wanted to stop pollution we could easily do that by closing down power plants and stopping everyone from driving. The fact is that pollution is an important part of our everyday lives and we cannot create prosperity without creating pollution. The best way therefore to deal pollution is to assign a correct price to pollution and use the revenues to deal with the damage. This way markets will adapt to minimise pollution.

Further, the damage done to the property of the plaintiff may not be a proper reflection of the damage done to the environment - it's easy to see a case where a motor repair shop gets very little compensation adjudged for an oil leak from the petrol station next door, since it will do very little damage to the motor repair shop's business.

How do we then assess the damage done to the environment? If we can't measure the damage done, then how can we possibly punish it?

Scofflaw

If pollution is happening and causing damage to their property I doubt it would cost too much to identify that. If the pollution is causing damage to the property then the source will be local, so it shouldn't be too hard to find the source. If the case isn't worth taking on then what's the point of worrying about it?

In fact, identifying pollution sources can be a very expensive and difficult job, and sources need not be local at all. Pollution in karst terrain, for example, can travel very long distances undiluted through very intricate conduit networks - and you'd be amazed by just how much of Ireland is underlain by old karst. Point sources close together can also be difficult to distinguish, and that's without considering non-point sources.

Damage from pollution can be both insidious and long-term, and also difficult to ascribe more than statistically. A half-decent lawyer can create enough doubt to draw cases out over long periods.

The disadvantage of the state is that it just passes regulations and mandates instead of assigning a price to pollution as it should. Any time the state does assign a cost (i.e the carbon tax) the revenue just goes toward funding general Government expenses instead of compensating the victims of pollution.

That's not a necessary feature of the state at all - the state could equally assign and enforce a compensation scheme.

I also believe that just because the state doesn't have pollution regulations doesn't mean the state can't prosecute pollution. As we can't privatise the sky or the oceans, the state can prosecute people who pollute either and use the compensation to deal with the pollution.

Ring-fencing is always a superficially attractive option, but the costs of cleanup tend in fact to be too large, while companies can avoid post-mining rehabilitation by declaring bankruptcy.

If both parties are both satisfied with the outcome then what is the point of stopping the pollution? Sure it would be lovely if we didn't pollute and we should try and decrease pollution as much as possible but that doesn't mean we should always do that. If we wanted to stop pollution we could easily do that by closing down power plants and stopping everyone from driving. The fact is that pollution is an important part of our everyday lives and we cannot create prosperity without creating pollution. The best way therefore to deal pollution is to assign a correct price to pollution and use the revenues to deal with the damage. This way markets will adapt to minimise pollution.

How do we then assess the damage done to the environment? If we can't measure the damage done, then how can we possibly punish it?

And how does one correctly price pollution? By the immediate impact on someone else's business? Or health? Over how many years? Where do the effects of pollution stop, exactly?

I think you may be thinking of pollution in relatively simplistic terms (no offence meant - if you haven't studied/practised environmental science, you're likely to), where plaintiff A identifies defendant B as the source of the pollution affecting his property. But in a few years time, the pollution may have spread to other properties (and which ones exactly may depend on random events) - and on a timescale of decades, may be part of a 'background' level of pollution at some far distant property, or have worked its way up through the ecosystem to affect other livelihoods. Tracing pollution isn't a simple business, and assigning costs based on individual perception of impact is likely to lead to non-optimal outcomes.

If you are the plaintiff in a libertarian pollution case, you are likely to seek a level of compensation that reflects the balance of costs in pursuing the case against the damage you attribute to the pollution. You're unlikely to pursue compensation that would adequately cover all future users of the property, or any more distant properties potentially affected at some future time. The outcomes of 'contractual' pricing of compensation are never going to reflect the true costs of the damage, because aside from anything else the true costs of the damage may not be known for a century - and if you don't believe that, I suggest a trip to the Lancashire dales to look at the after-effects of Victorian industry. The after-effects of Roman industry in southern Jordan are still visible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I don't know whats not to understand.

Think of it this way; Liberals want less big brother in your everyday life, they're pro-choice et. but want to have a huge hand in directing the economy. Conservatives want you to keep to traditional values in your private life, but want a hands-off approach when it comes to economics.

These definitions are just wrong in a European context. They may well be valid for the US (although I suspect that many Americans would disagree with the definitions also) but trying to apply them here without regard to the existing European situation is exceedingly unhelpful.

UsernameInUse

View wrote: »

These definitions are just wrong in a European context. They may well be valid for the US (although I suspect that many Americans would disagree with the definitions also) but trying to apply them here without regard to the existing European situation is exceedingly unhelpful.

These definitions are spot of for your information. I'm a Libertarian myself through and through. Actually, scrap that..I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist and damn proud of it. You know, the one that comes after Libertarianism..the more radical, extreme ideology which involves the complete dismantling of the State and everything it stands for, as opposed to just having a "small government" that Libertarians advocate and I would gladly sacrifice my life for a Libertarian world because I truly understand the amount of human suffering it would genuinely relieve on this god-forsaken corrupt cesspit planet. I can recite all viewpoints of Ludwig von Mises and rehearse every publication from Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Thomas Woods so I do believe you're speaking with the right person.

Now, taking history into context, my comments are correct. Using the U.S as a starting point, as that is where Libertarianism is most prominent, I have used the examples of the Liberals and Conservatives. As for Ireland turning Libertarian tomorrow - difficult to imagine. Libertarianism is not just a political viewpoint, it's a completely different system to live under; a different way society organises itself. Capitalism has never existed in this world - if it did, we're talking in terms of economic growth along the lines of steroids on steroids. What special interest would want such a thing? Where would be the protectionism? What Tom, Dick and Harry would vote to end their free dole money at societies expense even if it meant freedom of the mind and body? What we have is corporate fascism, and every E.U referendum that gets a 'Yes' vote brings us further and further away from a Libertarian world and into totalitarian handcuffs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

"Libertarianism is not just a political viewpoint, it's a completely different system to live under; a different way society organises itself."

Change one word and that could be a Stalinist talking. The result of acting on it would be similar, namely unneccessary human suffering as a result of imposing purist political dogma on complex modern human societies.

matthew8

Boulevardier wrote: »

"Libertarianism is not just a political viewpoint, it's a completely different system to live under; a different way society organises itself."

Change one word and that could be a Stalinist talking. The result of acting on it would be similar, namely unneccessary human suffering as a result of imposing purist political dogma on complex modern human societies.

How do all debates on libertarianism end up in us being called communists?

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

How do all debates on libertarianism end up in us being called communists?

There are similar levels of indoctrination and faith involved.

UsernameInUse

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

lol..I was waiting for someone to catch that to dissect. I was going to leave that part out entirely and pondered writing it at all. I was fully aware of the confusion it may have entailed. However, it in no way violates Libertarian philosophy as you fully know Perma, let me explain...

Say a Libertarian society is threatened from a Statist society. Is it not just to defend oneself against the tyranny of the State? Rothbard wrote "a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them". So in self-defense, in defense of my family and liberty, it is not unjust, therefore my statement stands. :cool:

20Cent

UsernameInUse wrote: »

lol..I was waiting for someone to catch that to dissect. I was going to leave that part out entirely and pondered writing it at all. I was fully aware of the confusion it may have entailed. However, it in no way violates Libertarian philosophy as you fully know Perma, let me explain...

Say a Libertarian society is threatened from a Statist society. Is it not just to defend oneself against the tyranny of the State? Rothbard wrote "a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them". So in self-defense, in defense of my family and liberty, it is not unjust, therefore my statement stands. :cool:

Sounds like Timothy McVeigh.

UsernameInUse

Boulevardier wrote: »

"Libertarianism is not just a political viewpoint, it's a completely different system to live under; a different way society organises itself."

Change one word and that could be a Stalinist talking. The result of acting on it would be similar, namely unneccessary human suffering as a result of imposing purist political dogma on complex modern human societies.

How could anyone compare Freedom with Communism?