Libertarians: what happens when...

[flyinj]

I've often wondered how, exactly, Libertarians think the world would operate if they were able to abolish all the government agencies they feel are unnecessary.

Seeing how there are some Libertarians on this board, I'd like them to give a picture of how things would pan out in their minds if the following conditions existed:

Elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency

No agency is watching over pollution by industry.

Industry then self-regulates itself? What compels industry to self-regulate when it's extremely unprofitable to clean up after themselves? Is it just basic human morality by the CEOs?

Or do they just pollute to their heart's content, and then set up for-profit "non-pollution" zones where people can pay a premium to live in an area that has clean water, non-toxic ground, and little air pollution?

Elimination of the Food and Drug Administration

No agency is making sure that food or drugs are safe.

Any drug you buy in the store could potentially be poisonous, as well as any item of food. This one I really can't wrap my head around.

The assumption being the free market would eventually "weed out" the tainted food and drugs, as word of mouth would spread that the food or drug will kill you or make you extremely sick.

How hard would it be to put a new product on the market in this case. No one could trust anything. Would you sell everything at rock bottom prices, allowing the poor who can't afford "trusted" brands to use it, and then if it doesn't kill them spread word of mouth that the product is safe, thus allowing you to gradually raise the price as it becomes a well-known safe brand?

What happens if a corporation is on the brink of collapse, and decides to flood the market with tainted food/drugs to cash in as much as possible before folding?

Elmination of the Department of Transportation

No agency is funding nor overseeing the construction of roads, bridges, or air traffic.

I'm assuming this entire sector would be privatized. All roads and bridges would be tolled, of course.

As far as safety, there is no overseeing body making sure that a road or bridge is up to standards. The industry itself would have their own per-corporation guidelines in this respect, the motivation being that no one wants to pay to cross an unsafe bridge.

How will this work? The free market will weed out the unsafe corporations by having the bad, underfunded bridges collapse while people drive over them, while the better built ones remain standing? Will there be several bridges side-by-side at a river crossing, where the cheaper one might collapse but save you a buck whereas the premium one is safer but more expensive?

What about rural roads? If there is no profit in laying down roads in a small community, why bother even putting one there? Dirt roads everywhere? Maybe one of the richer people in the community would put a few toll roads in through main street?

Elimination of Fire and Police forces

There are no government-run police or fire services.

Again, I'm assuming this would be entirely privatized as well.

This one just goes without saying. A private police force with self-run oversight? What a complete nightmare. I'm not even going to bother describing what an absolutely awful idea this is. However, please explain how you would think this could work.

Fire agencies would only extinguish a house fire if the resident could afford it?


There are many more questions I have, but that's a good start. Have at it!

[Lum]

I know of very few libertarians who seriously advocate all of the above. You've ranked them in order of most likely to least likely which is probably intentional - a lot of non-libertarian conservatives favor gutting the EPA (they aren't "pro-pollution", they run the gamut of "environmental regulations are overkill" to "carbon dioxide is good for you! yay emissions!"), but even the kookiest anarcho-libertarian doesn't seriously advocate completely privatized emergency services.

I could be wrong and one of our resident trolls will probably weigh in any moment to say he's fine with Joe's Police & Fire, LLC, but in the real world infrastructure and emergency services (along with justice and a baseline military defense) are seen as the few core services that government should provide for regardless, no matter the political inclination. A few years ago I would have put the FDA along with that but apparently Glenn Beck thinks Upton Sinclair's a filthy liar, so yay, free melamine for everyone!

[Timex]

Ya, I think Lum said it pretty well.

Libertarians don't tend to believe in complete removal of all government services any more than socialists believe in complete domination of all government services.

You'll certainly get crazies who are ideological zealots, but I think most people are pragmatic enough to realize that the ideology is just a set of guiding principles, not a dictation of policy.

[Houngan]

Privatized fire can work, after a fashion, but privatized police are just independent gangs. Without a social mandate policing can't be done.

H.

[Lum]

Actually socialists do believe in complete government domination of all economic services (which is what you meant, I think). The problem is that in the current US political discourse the word 'socialist' has been bastardized beyond all meaning to mean 'more liberal than I like'.

[Malathor]

blah blah

You might want to go lp.org to begin with and start educating yourself as to what Libertarians actually think and believe instead of trying to debate the idiot strawmen inside your head.

[Robert Sharp]

Robert Nozick comes close to a lot of those actually. But you should probably separate theory from practicality on this. Libertarians probably think that in an ideal world those things would be privatized, but can still admit that this is not an ideal world. So certain concessions would have to be made.

[HumanTon]

Actually socialists do believe in complete government domination of all economic services (which is what you meant, I think). The problem is that in the current US political discourse the word 'socialist' has been bastardized beyond all meaning to mean 'more liberal than I like'.

And actually real libertarians (not fellow travelers like Lum;) do believe in getting rid of the EPA and FDA ... and even privatizing the road netowork and security. It's just that in current US political discourse the word "libertarian" has been bastardized beyond all meaning to mean "wants lower taxes but also wants legalized pot and doesn't object to gay marriage."

[Tortilla]

Well hell, if we are going to define libertarian that way I'm practically one. Except for the whole lower taxes thing.

[StGabe]

Would all True Libertarians please stand up.

[flyinj]

You might want to go lp.org to begin with and start educating yourself as to what Libertarians actually think and believe instead of trying to debate the idiot strawmen inside your head.

I have, indeed, read through quite a few pages on lp.org, and these are the conclusions I'm drawing from what their viewpoints on cutting government and elimination of taxes mean. Also, LP.ORG doesn't entail the entire Libertarian movement.

Instead of insulting me, why don't you give me an example of what the actual Libertarian Party take on the above points are? For instance, when eliminating the EPA, what measures would curb industrial pollution?

Here's a direct quote from LP.ORG under the "Environment" section:

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

That sounds to me like a clear mandate to eliminate the EPA and all government oversight of corporate and industrial pollution.

[Jason McCullough]

First, go read Nozick. Second, forget it, because it's all just hand-waving to hide greed, and no one of the face of the earth you'll ever meet uses it as a guiding principle, the intellectual DC/Reason crowd included.

A bit of notes to save you some time:

1. Every self-claimed libertarian you meet will claim no commonality with the Libertarian Party (cranks), actually elected DC types like Rand Paul or Ron Paul who claim to be libertarians (cranks or actually secret Republicans), or any famousy libertarians online when they get caught saying something dumb.
2. They will claim they don't agree with any of the extreme positions you've laid out, even though they're logical implied by the philosophical premises. A variety of bad logical arguments are presented why, but come down to "well I benefit from that so it can't be that bad."
3. They will claim they're not just rich non-religious Republicans even though they consistently vote that way.

[flyinj]

2. They will claim they don't agree with any of the extreme positions you've laid out, even though they're logical implied by the philosophical premises. A variety of bad logical arguments are presented why, but come down to "well I benefit from that so it can't be that bad."

This is what I'm interested in. What are these arguments?

[Calelari]

The problem with trying to figure out what libertarian believe is, I would say, summarized as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. That and as with communism, there is a fundamental disconnect between the theory and reality. Humans are not rational actors.

[Timex]

I think you are conflating libertarianism with a belief that laise faire capitalism will result in an optimal system. It's possible to recognize the limitations of capitalism while still embracing the principles pragmatically, just as it's possible to recognize the limitations of socialism while still embracing the principles. You don't have to take the ideology to the extreme via blind zealotry.

[Tortilla]

First, go read Nozick. Second, forget it, because it's all just hand-waving to hide greed, and no one of the face of the earth you'll ever meet uses it as a guiding principle, the intellectual DC/Reason crowd included.

A bit of notes to save you some time:

1. Every self-claimed libertarian you meet will claim no commonality with the Libertarian Party (cranks), actually elected DC types like Rand Paul or Ron Paul who claim to be libertarians (cranks or actually secret Republicans), or any famousy libertarians online when they get caught saying something dumb.
2. They will claim they don't agree with any of the extreme positions you've laid out, even though they're logical implied by the philosophical premises. A variety of bad logical arguments are presented why, but come down to "well I benefit from that so it can't be that bad."
3. They will claim they're not just rich non-religious Republicans even though they consistently vote that way.

This. So this.

[Brettmcd]

This. So this.

Nice group of strawmen and other untruths there Jason posted, too bad you fully buy into the BS.

[StGabe]

Nice group of strawmen and other untruths there Jason posted, too bad you fully buy into the BS.

If you want to call something a strawman, you have to find a living, breathing counter-example to set up beside it.

[Brettmcd]

If you want to call something a strawman, you have to find a living, breathing counter-example to set up beside it.

Lets see the people I know here who are libertarians do affilate with the party and vote that way, just as I do.

We arent all rich people who vote republican either. I am middle class and voted libertarian for president and the elections where they have people running for the past 15 or so years, same as the other libertarians I know who are my age.

But Jason can go on believing all the things he thinks all libertarians believe.

[StGabe]

Lets see the people I know here who are libertarians do affilate with the party and vote that way, just as I do.

You guys absolutely hew to many of those stereotypes, especially #2. See, "No True Libertarian".

[Malathor]

Instead of insulting me, why don't you give me an example of what the actual Libertarian Party take on the above points are? For instance, when eliminating the EPA, what measures would curb industrial pollution?

Because the exact same crap gets posted over and over and over. Enforceable property rights is the core of Libertarianism. Why do people keep making this stupid no remedy for polluters argument yet again? The answer is obvious.

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-t...&postcount=439

Yeah, yeah, there are stock responses to that. "But Malathor, what if the polluting/unsafe product company doesn't have the assets to pay for all the damages and just declares bankruptcy?" Then you pierce the corporate veil and make the malfeasant officers pay, in flesh if it makes you feel better. "But what about transaction costs?" Then throw in strict liability, triple damages and whatever else is necessary to achieve the level of deterrence necessary.

[StGabe]

The solution for a global warming is that, after the world is flooded, non-polluting 3rd world countries will be able to sue the US for hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Gee, was that really so hard?

[Malathor]

The solution for a global warming is that, after the world is flooded, non-polluting 3rd world countries will be able to sue the US for hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Gee, was that really so hard?

Yes, I'm very sure the EPA will be able to scold the Chinese into doing your bidding. What was your point?

[StGabe]

What was your point?

That tort doesn't solve the problems you think it does.

By the way: who owns the ozone layer?

[Malathor]

By the way: who owns the ozone layer?

Does not matter if there are damages to it not being there. Are there damages? Skin Cancer? Start advertising looking for melanoma victims and we'll file a class action against all the chlorofluorocarbon producing chemical companies.

[StGabe]

Does not matter if there are damages to it not being there. Are there damages? Skin Cancer? Start advertising looking for melanoma victims and we'll file a class action against all the chlorofluorocarbon producing chemical companies.

So your solution, in the event of a global warming crisis, is to sue everyone in the world who drives a car?

[Malathor]

So your solution, in the event of a global warming crisis, is to sue everyone in the world who drives a car?

There isn't a "solution" for rogue states. Not without a one world government or a world police force. The Chinese and Indian goverments will have to agree out of the kindness of their hearts. Since they are god damned governments by their very nature you can expect evil. You better hope that pumping sulfates into the upper atmosphere works.

[StGabe]

You better hope that pumping sulfates into the upper atmosphere works.

In other words: you don't have a solution for pollution. Ok, glad we had this chat.

[Malathor]

In other words: you don't have a solution for pollution. Ok, glad we had this chat.

In other words, you don't either. Not across international boundaries of countries that refuse to participate. No one does, government regulation or tort makes no difference in such a situation. So what the hell is your point? We should declare war on China?

[Tortilla]

Nice group of strawmen and other untruths there Jason posted, too bad you fully buy into the BS.

Jason's point matched up perfectly with my experience of libertarians to date. If you disagree, could you perhaps offer a specific critique or counter example? I find your rebuttal unlikely to shift my views on the basis of flat and unsupported declaration that my personal experiences with libertarians are "strawmen" and "untruths" but perhaps I've just met the bad apples.