What is Digg?15 Comments
- ZackScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here are my 13 questions about libertarian philosophy. I know that not all libertarians will agree on every issue, and that some questions might even divide libertarians. Also, I know some might seem pointed or hypothetical, but I’m looking for genuine responses. When replying, it could help to indicate whether or not you consider yourself a libertarian as well. Thanks for helping me understand.
1. Should the federal government protect the environment? Should there be national parks or endangered species laws?
2. Should food companies be required to list the ingredients on the package? If not, should there be a punishment for printing false information on food product packages, or would the only determent be how customers would react if they found out they were lied to.
3. I’ve gained enough info to understand that libertarians are against federal drug laws, but what about state or city drug laws? Also, are federal drug laws unconstitutional?
4. Should there be a post office?
5. Should interstate highways even exist? Furthermore, should there be state-funded roads, or should all roads be ran by companies? Companies provide us with electricity we have to pay for, so why don’t companies provide us with roads we have to pay for.
6. Should there be anti-monopoly laws, or should the market take care of itself?
7. Should any government entity prevent restaurants from serving food or items that are known to be bad for us? A lot of libertarians disagree with the upcoming trans fat ban in NYC, but trans fat is pretty much just bad for us. What if restaurants still served our food on plates with lead paint? It’s bad, but people could chose not to eat there.
8. I’ve gathered that libertarians don’t like seatbelt laws, but should there be laws requiring parents to make their children under 18 wear seatbelts? With that said, should it still be illegal for parents to give children alcohol?
9. Should there be laws that say where guns are allowed, or should it be up to the owner of the place?
10. Should there be public education systems, or should all schools be private? I’m sure some charity would open free schools, but they wouldn’t be ran by any sort of government
11. Should it be illegal for an employer to discriminate by race when hiring?
12. Libertarians seem to hold private property in high value. Should people be allowed to own airspace?
13. If our society were truly libertarian, what type of legislation would congress work on? - BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Zack, I am writing a response to your inquiry. I will not, however, post it on digg as it will be too lengthy and will not be finished until this afternoon. I'll post a link later today.
- BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK Zack...here is my response.
http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=17#more - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well I didn't find a podcast for each of your question, but the important thing is not details on how things will work, it's understanding the principle of non-aggression and the effects of betraying this principle.
You should be able to come up with answers to all your questions by listening to these. If you don't find an answer to something, don't worry, people in search of a profit will find ways to get you what you want.
1. http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/environmentalism_part_1.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/environmentalism_part_2.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/environmentalism_part_3.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_492_Speech_Libertarian_Convention_Environmentalism.mp3
3.http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/The_Drug_Wars_Part_1.MP3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/The_Drug_Wars_Part_2.MP3
5.http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/Roads_Part_1.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/Roads_Part_2.mp3
6.http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/monopolies_and_the_state.mp3
8.http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/saving_children.mp3
9.http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/guns_part_1.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/guns_part_2.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/guns_part_3.mp3
10.http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/public_schools_part_1.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/public_schools_part_2.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/public_schools_part_3_Vouchers.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/public_schools_part_4_Alternatives.mp3
11.http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/the_market_and_racism.mp3 - BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey Zack....let me know what you think after you have read my response.
- freemenow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11. Should the federal government protect the environment? Should there be national parks or endangered species laws?
The federal (or more likely, state) governments should enforce property rights through the civil courts. If someone has damaged your property
through pollution, it is a form or trespass. Trespass is force. So yes, to that extent, government should protect the environment. Also, government
should protect the government by selling the national parks to the highest bidder. The highest bigger, having invested a great deal of money in his
new land, is likely to do a MUCH better job of protecting it than the government ever has or will. For example, the Feds sell logging rights in national
forests at a fraction of the price that any (sane) owner would require.
2. Should food companies be required to list the ingredients on the package? If not, should there be a punishment for printing false information on food product packages, or would the only determent be how customers would react if they found out they were lied to.
I don't believe there is a need to force food companies to print ingredients on the package. I believe they would do so, because I believe that most people
want to know what they're putting in their bodies, and therefore would be more likely to buy food with such information provided. If a company printed
false information (intentionally) on packaging (or anything else), that would be an act of fraud. Such fraud could be handled by either criminal or civil
courts.
3. I’ve gained enough info to understand that libertarians are against federal drug laws, but what about state or city drug laws? Also, are federal drug laws
unconstitutional?
Libertarians oppose all laws concerning "victimless crime". "Victimless crime" is a contradiction in terms. And yes, the federal drug laws are
unconstitutional. When congress passed prohibition, they had to amend the constitution in order to give themselves the power, first. There is no such
amendment to justify the "war on drugs" or the existence of the FDA, or mandatory prescriptions. When drugs are legal, I look forward to being able to
make my medical decisions with (at my option) the advice of a doctor who knows that I am paying him, not for his privileged position as a prescriber, but
because I actually value his advice. I suspect he'll make sure that I continue to value his advice by making it good.
4. Should there be a post office?
Yes. There are several that would do: FedEx, UPS, and there will be many more when the government is out of the business. BTW, before you assume
that we would be paying the prices we pay such companies now, keep in mind that they are currently delivering a much more sophisticated service (rapid
delivery) and I think it quite likely that they will end up offering more choice AND lower prices.
5. Should interstate highways even exist? Furthermore, should there be state-funded roads, or should all roads be ran by companies? Companies provide
us with electricity we have to pay for, so why don’t companies provide us with roads we have to pay for.
Again, they should exist as private entities. This would have been technically difficult (but possible) in 1789, but would not be nearly as hard now. This
is about my last priority, though. If, after the revolution, we end up with a government that builds roads and does very little else, it will not break my heart.
it's such a simple thing that even they can't screw it up TOO badly.
6. Should there be anti-monopoly laws, or should the market take care of itself?
The market should take care of itself. Harmful monopolies can only be created/maintained by government intervention. There are some kinds of monopoly
that can exist in a free market (for example a failure monopoly, where if a business builds a railroad to a small town, finds it can't support his debt
payments and goes bankrupt, someone else can buy the old railroad at a fraction of the price and run it at a profit. But this sort of monopoly does not
it's customers, as if they did not do what they did, the town would just have to live without rail service.)
That said, there is a possibility of collusion raising prices in the short run. I would like to see one or more non-governmental companies that made a
business of finding businesses where this was going on, and either buying or building a new company in those industries to break the cartel. But
governmental anti-monopoly practice does far more harm than good.
One issue that is open in my mind is copyright and patent. These are monopolies enforced by government. There are good arguments for and against
them. Again, I could probably live with just about any solution to these problems a sane (libertarian) society came up with.
7. Should any government entity prevent restaurants from serving food or items that are known to be bad for us? A lot of libertarians disagree with the upcoming trans fat ban in NYC, but trans fat is pretty much just bad for us. What if restaurants still served our food on plates with lead paint? It’s bad, but people could chose not to eat there.
No. I like food that is bad for me. I like cheeseburgers, I like McDonalds fries. How much of these things I consume and how much of a price I pay to
do so is an intimate decision that I am unwilling to delegate.
8. I’ve gathered that libertarians don’t like seatbelt laws, but should there be laws requiring parents to make their children under 18 wear seatbelts? With that said, should it still be illegal for parents to give children alcohol?
There is a law requiring that parents take care of their kids. It is the law of evolution. If they do not do a reasonable job, their bloodline will die out.
9. Should there be laws that say where guns are allowed, or should it be up to the owner of the place?
It should be up to the owner.
10. Should there be public education systems, or should all schools be private? I’m sure some charity would open free schools, but they wouldn’t be ran by any sort of government.
It should be private, and charity and/or financing should be fine for those few would could not afford the (much cheaper) price of education in a libertarian
society.
11. Should it be illegal for an employer to discriminate by race when hiring?
No. That said, it would generally be in the employer's best interest not to discriminate, as if he does so, he is cutting himself off from part of the talent
pool, and thereby costing himself money. Not to mention alienation of potential customers. Who wants to deal with a person like that?
12. Libertarians seem to hold private property in high value. Should people be allowed to own airspace?
I would say that everything which can be owned should be owned. Otherwise it has to struggle by defended only by an incompetent government. (Is there
another kind?)
13. If our society were truly libertarian, what type of legislation would congress work on?
In a libertarian society, it is very likely that congress would almost never actually meet. Most of the laws could be written very quickly after the founding of
the republic and left alone for long periods of time. - BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Well, I have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party."
I am grateful for that.
"Libertarian centralists like BoneHead64 :), who are happy to betray the very essence of libertarianism to get a favored "libertarian" outcome, are a part of the problem, not the solution"
Hmmmm....and just what the hell makes YOU an authority on libertarianism. I am top dead center on the Nolan Chart....hardly a centrest. As usual, the purity police on parade. - freemenow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I republished my answers (and your questions) at:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Libertarian_Questions_and_Answers
Can you diggit? - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Short answers:
1. No; ??.
2. No; Depends.
3. Fundamental misunderstanding on your part, I think; Yes.
4. ??
5. ??; No
6. No; yes (monopoly can only exist by government grant!)
7. No.
8. No; no.
9. Up to the owner.
10. All private.
11. No.
12. Yes.
13. None (Congress wouldn't exist)
I don't think more verbose answers to these questions would help you understand anything useful; the answers are all obvious and non-controversial if you understand the basis of libertarianism: everybody's rights are equal - nobody has the right to initiate violence against others; and that includes people who wear blue or green uniforms, or have offices in impressive-looking buildings (i.e., police, military, and politicians). Note that consistent application of this principle leads directly to anarchism - most "libertarians" are not that consistent.
In a couple of places I wrote "??": in asking the question, you're making incorrect assumptions. E.g., "Should there be national parks?" and "Should there be a post office?" Well, if "should" means "by means of force", then the answer is obviously "no", but it doesn't require force: parks and postal service would both exist without government. Regarding drug laws: libertarians are not "against federal drug laws", they're (we're) against the initiation of force - politicians have no more right to insist that "you, ZackScott, may not inject yourself with heroin" than you do to insist "you, GeorgeBush, may not eat a ham sandwich". That goes for state and city too, of course. But you can certainly insist that houseguests not shoot up while they're staying with you (you don't threaten to lock them up or kill them if they disregard your rules; you just kick them off your property) - so any private property owner may control what people do on his property. (But - and this relates to your question about owning airspace, as well - only /legitimate/ property owners; the argument that government is in the same position as a property owner renting his property to the citizen/subjects, and can therefore set rules, is stupid. See below for definition of legitimacy)
Here's some essential reading:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
http://www.mises.org/econsense/econsense.asp
(and then everything at http://www.mises.org - more than you could get through in a lifetime) - ZackScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just posted something on your post's comments. It took me awhile to write. Anyway, thanks so much for doing this.
- ZackScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Awesome, thank you. I know there are many different types of libertarians as well, I just thought posting questions about the things I'm curious about would help me understand better.
- BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Misesean said: "wanting the central (federal) government to tell the states what to do (you're also implying that eminent domain is just fine for some other purposes!). If you were consistent, you'd call for a World Government to enforce "libertarian" outcomes worldwide."
***********************************************
My desire is for a "state" amendment to protect property owners from developers as a result of the Kelo v New London decision. It is a realistic and obtainable goal. This differs from your position of desiring "libertopia" which is unattainable, unrealistic and anarchistic. If I am "part of the problem," then our election returns would indicate such. We are now witnessing results in my state that makes us competitive. Your disdain for our Constitutional form of government I find repugnant if not seditious.
Your position reminds me of that of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So obsessed was he with "purity of essence" that he was willing to watch his world destroyed in the process of protecting himself against a perceived, yet imagined, threat. There is no "magic button" to push and create libertopia. However, I do at least recognize your right to secede from our political process......The Rio Grande is but a days drive south... - BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hence we see the perfect examples of the two factions of the LP. Whereas Misesean states that Congress would not exist, his view is consistent with that of the anarcho-capitalist faction. This view is neither realistic, nor attainable.
There are few "guarantees" made to the "states" within the US Constitution. Outside the full faith and credit clause, and extradition, the most important can be found under Article IV, section 4 which states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This will never be changed outside the amendment process which, from a view of reality, will never happen.
While those of us that work with lawmakers and our local government attempt to move policy in a "libertarian" direction, such as getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban eminent domain for economic development, others will simply demand their "right" to secede from bemoan the very existence of government. Libertarianism does not equate to anarchism, though many would have you believe such. Actually, even my colleagues who are anarchists would never proffer such a proposition. This form of "Libertopia" has never, will never and can never exist.
For a more simplistic view of the "philosophy" (not to be confused with policy) of what law and the purpose of law is in the truest sense, perhaps you should read Frederick Bastiat's book.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
You can get the pdf version here:
http://www.fortbendlp.org/downloads/credo/The_Law.pdf - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Libertarian centralist" is not a position on the Nolan chart; it's a "libertarian" who supports centralized government. E.g., you said you want a constitutional amendment against the use of eminent domain for commercial purposes - that's a "centralist" position: wanting the central (federal) government to tell the states what to do (you're also implying that eminent domain is just fine for some other purposes!). If you were consistent, you'd call for a World Government to enforce "libertarian" outcomes worldwide.
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well, I have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party.
"Whereas Misesean states that Congress would not exist, his view is consistent with that of the anarcho-capitalist faction. This view is neither realistic, nor attainable."
You no doubt would have said the same about secession of the Soviet states right up 1991...
(Libertarian centralists like BoneHead64 :), who are happy to betray the very essence of libertarianism to get a favored "libertarian" outcome, are a part of the problem, not the solution)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is