A question for the Libertarians

[Econ4every1]

First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.

So here is my question.

It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.

The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.

Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.

My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI). In the world we have now businesses are allowed to write down losses and many businesses will show losses for years before showing profitability, but it's taxpayers that pay for some if not all of the losses, This increases return on investment and reduces the barriers to entry for new businesses increasing the ability for startups to be more competitive.

It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.

1. The barrier to entry would be even greater than it is now delaying profitability and requiring investors to take much greater risks (with great risk must come the promise of great potential returns).

2. Increased risk comes at an increased cost.

3. Even if the private sector could have invented the internet, built the infrastructure to utilize it, settled on thousands if not 10's of thousands of interoperability standards, is there any reason to think, that without government providing tax incentives (at both the federal and state level), grants for R&D, organizations like ISO, IEC, IEEE, IETF, W3C, OASIS, Ecma International, HL7 International, IHE, SISO, DMTF, The Open Group just to name a few (and yes some are international, but almost certainly established by US government influence if not money).


I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.

I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.

My other issue with private companies running everything and the idea that they will do the right thing otherwise people won't purchase their products. Let's look at a real world example.

Dupont makes Teflon. Some of you may know that Teflon contamination (specifically C8 a processing aid used in the manufacturing of Teflon for many years. It helped in the polymerization process of PTFE, Teflon itself is inert at normal temperatures.) is so widespread that there isn't a single living thing that's not contaminated with it. Now Dupont has made $10 billion, extremely conservatively on it's sales of Teflon. A more realistic number could be as high as $30 billion.

They have been sued for approximately $6 billion. POFA, after 60 years was finally phased out in steps after 2003. Now we have C6. No long term publicly available testing, its assumed it's better than C8, but some preliminary testing shows it has similar effects as C8. But why should Dupon care? If future fines are some fraction of their profits.

Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?

 

[Gardener]

Idealogues of any sort lead us down the wrong path, and unless libertarianism is tempered by reason, empathy, and the desire for the greater good, it is just another masturbatory exercise.

 

[MamboDervish]

First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.

So here is my question.

It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.

The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.

Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.

My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI). In the world we have now businesses are allowed to write down losses and many businesses will show losses for years before showing profitability, but it's taxpayers that pay for some if not all of the losses, This increases return on investment and reduces the barriers to entry for new businesses increasing the ability for startups to be more competitive.

It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.

1. The barrier to entry would be even greater than it is now delaying profitability and requiring investors to take much greater risks (with great risk must come the promise of great potential returns).

2. Increased risk comes at an increased cost.

3. Even if the private sector could have invented the internet, built the infrastructure to utilize it, settled on thousands if not 10's of thousands of interoperability standards, is there any reason to think, that without government providing tax incentives (at both the federal and state level), grants for R&D, organizations like ISO, IEC, IEEE, IETF, W3C, OASIS, Ecma International, HL7 International, IHE, SISO, DMTF, The Open Group just to name a few (and yes some are international, but almost certainly established by US government influence if not money).


I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.

I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.

My other issue with private companies running everything and the idea that they will do the right thing otherwise people won't purchase their products. Let's look at a real world example.

Dupont makes Teflon. Some of you may know that Teflon contamination (specifically C8 a processing aid used in the manufacturing of Teflon for many years. It helped in the polymerization process of PTFE, Teflon itself is inert at normal temperatures.) is so widespread that there isn't a single living thing that's not contaminated with it. Now Dupont has made $10 billion, extremely conservatively on it's sales of Teflon. A more realistic number could be as high as $30 billion.

They have been sued for approximately $6 billion. POFA, after 60 years was finally phased out in steps after 2003. Now we have C6. No long term publicly available testing, its assumed it's better than C8, but some preliminary testing shows it has similar effects as C8. But why should Dupon care? If future fines are some fraction of their profits.

Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?

One of the greatest fallacies harbored by Trump's moronic minions is that government should be run like a business. It should never be!

Q: What business could ever survive by buying over 65% of what it manufactures itself? A: None. And yet that is exactly what the USA does.
Privatization will be the road to hell for this country, and the wannabe Über Kaiser Herr Drumpf the Magnificent, already has us well on our way.

'"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." ~ Benito Mussolini
That couldn't be clearer to anyone whose eyes are open.

 

[Sweden]

First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.

So here is my question.

It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.

The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.

Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.

My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI). In the world we have now businesses are allowed to write down losses and many businesses will show losses for years before showing profitability, but it's taxpayers that pay for some if not all of the losses, This increases return on investment and reduces the barriers to entry for new businesses increasing the ability for startups to be more competitive.

It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.

1. The barrier to entry would be even greater than it is now delaying profitability and requiring investors to take much greater risks (with great risk must come the promise of great potential returns).

2. Increased risk comes at an increased cost.

3. Even if the private sector could have invented the internet, built the infrastructure to utilize it, settled on thousands if not 10's of thousands of interoperability standards, is there any reason to think, that without government providing tax incentives (at both the federal and state level), grants for R&D, organizations like ISO, IEC, IEEE, IETF, W3C, OASIS, Ecma International, HL7 International, IHE, SISO, DMTF, The Open Group just to name a few (and yes some are international, but almost certainly established by US government influence if not money).


I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.

I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.

My other issue with private companies running everything and the idea that they will do the right thing otherwise people won't purchase their products. Let's look at a real world example.

Dupont makes Teflon. Some of you may know that Teflon contamination (specifically C8 a processing aid used in the manufacturing of Teflon for many years. It helped in the polymerization process of PTFE, Teflon itself is inert at normal temperatures.) is so widespread that there isn't a single living thing that's not contaminated with it. Now Dupont has made $10 billion, extremely conservatively on it's sales of Teflon. A more realistic number could be as high as $30 billion.

They have been sued for approximately $6 billion. POFA, after 60 years was finally phased out in steps after 2003. Now we have C6. No long term publicly available testing, its assumed it's better than C8, but some preliminary testing shows it has similar effects as C8. But why should Dupon care? If future fines are some fraction of their profits.

Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?

I have not closely read all of your post yet. But first things first: tax payers do not (in the UK or Sweden and I assume the USA) pay for companies losses. Companies not making profits simply pay lower taxes. They do not receive money from tax payers unlss elected governments are foolish enough to subsidise them to "protect jobs".

Companies are in general no risk averse. If they were they would never invest in new plant whereas in reality most companies most of the time DO invest continuously.

Free enterprise, properly regulated, has made the world rich. The oustanding example is China; poverty stricken under a socialist command economy, increasingly rich when companies were allowed to flourish.

Finally. Why do say 'libertarian' when what you are writing about is capitalism?

 

[bomberfox]

Wait until you get ancap lolcows or for fun genuine anarchists who know capitalism is a hierarchy and society requires mutual aid.

 

[Sweden]

Wait until you get ancap lolcows or for fun genuine anarchists who know capitalism is a hierarchy and society requires mutual aid.

What are 'ancap lolcows'?

 

[CaughtInThe]

I've read a lot of post on this board. I've yet to find a libertarian.

I found some fake ones though. They'll try to call themselves libertarians because of something. It's a way for them to skirt responsibility for what they actually vote for.

 

[bomberfox]

I've read a lot of post on this board. I've yet to find a libertarian.

I found some fake ones though. They'll try to call themselves libertarians because of something. It's a way for them to skirt responsibility for what they actually vote for.

I used to be one, no way would i have voted for trump.

 

[Sweden]

I've read a lot of post on this board. I've yet to find a libertarian.

I found some fake ones though. They'll try to call themselves libertarians because of something. It's a way for them to skirt responsibility for what they actually vote for.

Why do you think I am a 'fake libertarian'? One can believe in freedom without being an anarchist.

 

[Lord of Planar]

First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.

So here is my question.

It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.

The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.

Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.

<snip>

Like you said, the label casts a wide net.

The idea of private ownership has many positive aspect. Private ownership of a forest for example would them make the owner wish to keep a viable productive crop, instead of just harvesting what can be harvested. I remember debates from long ago, dealing with the slaughter of elephants in Africa for the ivory. Two of the African nations allowed the practice of harvesting elephants for ivory, and they had flourishing herds, because there was incentive to keep viable herds. Without it being illegal, nobody had to slaughter an run.

One tricky thing about libertarianism is self control. Take the freedom to its extreme without consideration, and it becomes anarchy. This is why you will find most libertarians agree to limited government control of many aspects of our lives.

Does that help?

 

[SkyChief]

First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.

My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI).

Shortsighted? Really? Ok. You're going to poke fun at libertarians, and that's cool. Ironic, actually.

It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.

That's a REALLY bad assumption. All libertarians oppose Direct Taxes, and therefore they would oppose any "Tax Incentives" on Direct taxes.

"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to steal for you." - Ron Paul

. . . Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. . . .

Sorry, no - Libertarianism encourages development, innovation, exploration, and growth. Government regulations and restrictions actually thwarts these things. You have it completely backwards.

I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.

Disagree. The Free Market works the best without government manipulations.

I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.

Agreed. Government is massively powerful, and citizens are terrified of the government. I certainly am. I'm also terrified by the people who advocate for an over-powerful government. These people are scary.

"When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?

Trade and the Free Market works better for everyone when government stays out of it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.

You are very wrong. I was with a business that was a private ownership that developed new technology that helped in the computer boom in the 90's. There was no government help or interference.

The problem today, is the government has its hands in so many things, that businesses wait to get paid to develop something. Why burden the research and development when you can talk the government into financing it?

 

[Gardener]

I used to be one, no way would i have voted for trump.

How did you go from a libertarian to an authoritarian leftist inin league with globalists?

 

[Econ4every1]

Does that help?

I was aware of most of that, and I'll concede that there things that we might learn from libertarian ideas that could be integrated into a better system, however, just as those on the right would point to the idea of a socialist utopia, where everyone is cooperating and working together for the benefit of society is a punchline, a meme, I find the idea of a libertarian utopia where everything is private and competitive and people are better off for it an even bigger pipe dream than the socialist utopia.

You are very wrong. I was with a business that was a private ownership that developed new technology that helped in the computer boom in the 90's. There was no government help or interference.

Be more specific, I buy I could find where government investment was at the root of your companies success. And to be clear, companies can create new and iterative products without direct government involvement. What companies won't do is invest in technologies that are not already established. Fir example. Let's say Molten Salt Reactors (MSR's) are the future of nuclear power and could create a revolution in how we make power emissions free, would less radioactive byproducts that aren't as ionizing as current reactors. They have built in safeties that prevent run-away reactions, cand can be made smaller and put closer to the communities they serve. Now whether that's true or not (though some of those claims have been made), but that's not the point, just grant me this as a fact (as if you and I are given a glimpse into the future and that's true). The point is, building these rectors is expensive (I think China just built one) and as of right now it's not known if these kinds of reactors can be profitable (ignoring all the other possible positives). The private sector would never invest in this today, but China's government will take the risk and it may or may not work out, But if it does, a world in which the private sector is all there is will almost certainly be unwilling to spend the money necessary to do the R&D to figure it out before a a government willing to to take risks that sometimes pay off.

And like SkyChief...The past 100 years is proof positive that the US government has made more good bets than bad ones given our status in the world.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Parker_Chess]

People are way too ideological whenever it comes to capitalism and socialism. And both full on anarcho-capitalism and socialism are refuted ideologies.

What we need to strive for is a balance. There are certain things that should remain in the public domain and others in the free market. A major area where the U.S. lags far behind is our Healthcare System. It would be much better if we had a government run healthcare system. People die every year from lack of coverage. Or end up in the emergency room for preventable illnesses. People are content with the status quo because they themselves may have good health coverage. They fail to see how ineffective our system is until their private insurer denies a claim.

 

[aociswundumho]

I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them.

1) Private industry already leads globally. Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, NVIDIA, Google, Amazon - these companies did not wait around for the idiot government. Spacex has revolutionized spaceflight, at lower cost, higher frequency, and greater innovation than NASA did in decades. U.S. private firms are leading globally in AI, biotech, and semiconductors despite, not because of, government direction.

2) Risk is everywhere in the private sector, and venture capital exists specifically to fund risky, unproven ideas, e.g. Uber, Airbnb, OpenAI, all began with high risk investment from the private sector.

I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest,

The idea that only a "social political mandate" can inspire industry is backwards. The private sector typically has a clearer and better vision precisely because they’re not mired in political crap and lobbying compromises.

even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.

You mean tax codes, regulatory compliance nightmares, IP and copyright bullshit, etc, which are all products of the state, not the market.

 

[aociswundumho]

There are certain things that should remain in the public domain and others in the free market.

What's the specific criteria for which industries should be controlled by the state?

 

[Parker_Chess]

What's the specific criteria for which industries should be controlled by the state?

I don't know if there's a specific criteria. Just whatever the electorate deems is in the public interest. Schools, Libraries, Museums, Postal Service, Police Department, Military, Parks, Roads, etc.

 

[Econ4every1]

Shortsighted? Really?

I didn't mean that as a derogatory statement, just pointing out the fact that next quarters numbers have enormous influence on decision making. It makes it difficult for businesses to plan longer term without impacting investment.

You're going to poke fun at libertarians

Poke fun? If I wanted to poke fun at the absurdity of Libertarianism, my remarks would have been more scathing and less consolatory (like the part where I said that we can learn valuable lessons from Libertarian ideas). I'm not arguing in bad faith. That said, I can think it's absurd, but be open minded to a well stated argument (argument in the Socratic sense).

Even the part where I talk about libertarian utopia is simply a comment meant to try to put into perspective how a non-Libertarian like myself sees it from the outside.

That's a REALLY bad assumption. All libertarians oppose Direct Taxes, and therefore they would oppose any "Tax Incentives" on Direct taxes.

Except there you'd be wrong. Robert Nozick wrote in his 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argued for a "minimal state" or "night-watchman state." This minimal state's sole legitimate functions would be:

• Protection against force, theft, and fraud: This includes maintaining a police force, a military for defense, and a judicial system.
• Enforcement of contracts: To ensure voluntary agreements are upheld.

Nozick believed that any state more extensive than this minimal state would violate individuals' rights. However, he acknowledged that even this minimal state would require funding. Therefore, he accepted the legitimacy of taxation solely for the purpose of funding these essential protective functions. To be fair (this is what arguing in good faith looks like), Nozick, believed that the acceptable level of taxation would be extremely low, focusing only on the bare necessities of maintaining order and enforcing rights, and not for any redistributive or social welfare programs.

Which means there are people that are influential in Libertarian circles that believe in minimal taxation.

Sorry, no - Libertarianism encourages development, innovation, exploration, and growth.

I think that Libertarians believe that as an ideal, but just a just as pure socialism has lofty goals that sound good, ideas you'd reject out-of-hand, I similarly reject the idea that in a purely privatized society that the goals you claim are achievable. Government funds the vast majority of major breakthroughs in medicine, technology, warfare, physics, chemistry etc. And, don't be confused, it's not that private industry cannot innovate, it's just that many of the innovations that private companies make find their roots in government funded research that private companies would have little incentive to engage in until the profit potential could be realized.

Disagree. The Free Market works the best without government manipulations.

Disagree. While private industry got the US to the moon in terms of the work that was done (very commendable BTW), it doesn't happen without government taking the risk and (uh-oh....bad word) socializing that risk.

Private industry, universities and individuals make groundbreaking discoveries, but the vast vast majority are made with government funding. Without government funding on the socializing of the risk that research does not bear fruit at least as early as it does, private industry would not take that risk, even if though you might argue they have the capability, but without the funding, nothing happens, the learning that takes place in trying to build a super-collider, nuclear technology, countless medical advances or a Hubble Telescope does not happen (unless another nations government funds it first and the viability of the project is revealed to investors).

And it's really not a good thing to be the last to the nuke party when you control a nation with enormous resources.

And take something as simple like SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Or, trying to figure out why babies were dying in their cribs. It took money and research to learn that the solution was to put children on their backs. Why would a company do that research if there's nothing to sell? No product? So that research and research like it, research that has only social value does not happen in a purely private society. Of course, you could have donations to that kind of work, but then only the people that donate to it are entitled to the results. So again, doesn't help society, just reenforces a top down society.

 

[Econ4every1]

1) Private industry already leads globally. Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, NVIDIA, Google, Amazon

None of those companies and the technologies they make their reputations and profits on, were developed without government funding taking the risk.

these companies did not wait around for the idiot government.

Absolutely demonstrably false.

Spacex has revolutionized spaceflight, at lower cost, higher frequency

NASA got Saturn 5 to the moon in 1969, in one try.

Starship is spending enormous amounts of government funds and missing target dates for missions while simultaneously scaling back on payload specifications and mission dats. So far there have been 8 flights, 4 have been deemed a success by SpaceX, but zero have achieved all of their objectives. All while spending $4 billion dollars and missing many of the milestones they agreed to.

SpaceX failure rate is extremely high, missing mission targets, scaling back on specifications, Musk promised Starship 225 tons to orbit today the spec has been reduced to 40-50 tons, though so far all that it's carried is a (not a joke) banana.
And no, SpaceX iterated on technologies that were developed by and funded by the government.

Now, I don't want to take anything away from the US private sector, the US private sector is fantastic and still leads the world in many respects, but it would not be in the position it is in today without funding and collaboration of the government to drive initiatives (the desire for broadband, a nationwide cell phone system. a public highway system, a GPS satellite system etc. and a government that can fund research that may or may not succeed (again, socializing the risk).

The last 100 years proves beyond any doubt that the government has driven many more successful initiatives than failures. Otherwise the US wouldn't lead these world in as many areas as it does.

Falcon has been the most successful by far and has made iterative improvements to rocket design, but again, $billions$ in US government funding made that possible.

2) Risk is everywhere in the private sector, and venture capital exists specifically to fund risky, unproven ideas, e.g. Uber, Airbnb, OpenAI, all began with high risk investment from the private sector.

Sure, once profitability has been identified, DARPA spent billions researching these technologies throughout the early to mid 20-teens. Once government funded technologies were deemed commercially viable, the government's progress was handed off to private industry.

I take nothing away from the excellent work done in technology, that's what I do, but I'm very familiar with the history of IT technology going all the way back to WWII. To claim that private industry could do this as effectively and as soon as the public private partnership we have today is not supported by any sort of evidence.

The idea that only a "social political mandate" can inspire industry is backwards. The private sector typically has a clearer and better vision precisely because they’re not mired in political crap and lobbying compromises.

It's not perfect, but the dynamism between the social and profit motive produces the best result, better than either by themselves.

You mean tax codes, regulatory compliance nightmares, IP and copyright bullshit, etc, which are all products of the state, not the market.

It's easy to see the problems in a system that exists and when you compare it to a hypothetical and focus on the hypothetical best cases, of course the hypothetical looks better.

Results speak for themselves.

 

[Fletch]

I used to be one, no way would i have voted for trump.

You would have voted for Harris?

 

[bomberfox]

People are way too ideological whenever it comes to capitalism and socialism. And both full on anarcho-capitalism and socialism are refuted ideologies.

What we need to strive for is a balance. There are certain things that should remain in the public domain and others in the free market. A major area where the U.S. lags far behind is our Healthcare System. It would be much better if we had a government run healthcare system. People die every year from lack of coverage. Or end up in the emergency room for preventable illnesses. People are content with the status quo because they themselves may have good health coverage. They fail to see how ineffective our system is until their private insurer denies a claim.

The problem with striking a balance is it will always be fleeting. As Emma Goldman put it, the interests of the capitalist class will always motivate them to claw back any concessions given to the working class. The American neoliberal system is working as intended. At this point, there is no getting money out of politics and reform will not happen without revolution.

 

[Econ4every1]

What's the specific criteria for which industries should be controlled by the state?

1) Any industry that by it's nature creates a natural monopoly, e.g. utilities like water, electricity, gas, and large-scale infrastructure such as railways and telecom networks is what comes to mind. These industries often have extremely high fixed costs, making it inefficient for multiple companies to compete. If left to the private sector, a single company could easily gain a monopoly and exploit consumers through high prices and poor service. State control can ensure universal access, fair pricing, and long-term investment in infrastructure without the profit motive distorting these objectives.

2) Essential services like healthcare, education, emergency services (police, fire), public transportation, and mail delivery. These services are considered fundamental to societal well-being and a basic human right by many. If privatized, access might be determined by ability to pay, leading to inequality and negative social consequences. State control aims to ensure equitable access, maintain quality standards, and prioritize public welfare over profit.

3) Strategic Industries (National Security and Economic Development), Examples: Defense, certain heavy industries (like steel or manufacturing of critical components), natural resources (e.g., oil, mining), and sometimes banking/finance. Argument for state control, For national security, direct state control of defense industries can ensure a reliable supply of necessary equipment and prevent critical technologies from falling into foreign hands. Control over natural resources can ensure their sustainable management and that the benefits accrue to the nation as a whole. In developing economies, the state might control certain key industries to steer economic development and industrialization.

4) Industries with Significant Externalities, Examples, environmental protection, industries with high pollution potential, or those with significant social impacts (e.g., prisons). Argument for state control, private companies, driven by profit, may not adequately account for the wider social or environmental costs (negative externalities) of their operations. State control or heavy regulation can enforce standards, internalize these costs, and prioritize broader societal benefits. Similarly, industries with large positive externalities (benefits to society beyond the direct consumer, like scientific research) might be state-supported or controlled to ensure sufficient investment.

That's not to say that in some of the areas I've listed that private industry shouldn't be allowed to compete, only that, where applicable, a private option is available. For industries like National Security, the government defines the mission and the private sector is tasked with carrying it out.

 

[SkyChief]

If I wanted to poke fun at the absurdity of Libertarianism, my remarks would have been more scathing and less consolatory (like the part where I said that we can learn valuable lessons from Libertarian ideas). I'm not arguing in bad faith. That said, I can think it's absurd, but be open minded to a well stated argument (argument in the Socratic sense).

What nonsense.

That's a REALLY bad assumption. All libertarians oppose Direct Taxes, and therefore they would oppose any "Tax Incentives" on Direct taxes.

Except there you'd be wrong.

I'm 100% right. You're 100% wrong. You never even knew that ALL libertarians oppose Direct taxes, if you HAD known that, then you would not have asked if libertarians support "incentives" on Direct Taxes. . . or on subsidies. ALL libertarians oppose subsidies, or any forms of market manipulations by the government.

Robert Nozick wrote in his 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argued for a "minimal state" or "night-watchman state." This minimal state's sole legitimate functions would be:

• Protection against force, theft, and fraud: This includes maintaining a police force, a military for defense, and a judicial system.
• Enforcement of contracts: To ensure voluntary agreements are upheld.

This is some interesting stuff, there, unfortunately it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the libertarian's core principle of not empowering government to force (or coerce) a citizen to do something against his or her will. Direct Taxes do exactly that. If someone doesn't pay Income (Direct) Tax, then one gets fined, or put in prison, or BOTH.

"When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Which means there are people that are influential in Libertarian circles that believe in minimal taxation.

You've completely ignored the difference between Direct Taxes, and Indirect Taxes. Without being able to distinguish the difference between the two, you cannot possibly understand why influential people in "libertarian circles" regard some taxes as acceptable, and other taxes as NOT ACCEPTABLE.

“ When I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.” - Ron Paul

ALL libertarians (including influential ones) oppose ANY forms of Direct Taxation. There are no exceptions. If someone thinks that Direct Taxes are acceptable, then they cannot possibly be a libertarian.