Libertarianism: a case study in consequences

[samsmart]

This is indeed a tragedy of both. The failure of government and the failure of the Libertarian service mechanism. People should not be held hostage by services.

Then perhaps constituents should pay better attention as to how their local governments are administrating such services. People don't get until it directly affects them. That is just as much a factor as anything else.

Again, what's next? If you miss your police fee, they let you get raped? Libertaianism is absurd.

Most police don't let people "get raped" now. What police do is investigate allegations of rape. The results of their investigation then gets passed on to the district attorney, who determines based on that investigation whether or not the state should press charges against the accused. If that happens, they get arrested, booked, and arraigned for trial. They then go through the court system system, usually a trial by jury, to determine their guilt or innocence.

The majority of the work done by the police isn't crime prevention - it is crime investigation.

Saying something like "the police will let you get raped" is like asking if "the police will let a crazy woman make false accusation of rape against you." Please stop being disingenuous.

 

[Technocratic]

Most police don't let people "get raped" now.

I agree now they don't, but they would under a Libertarian system. If a fire department can watch your house burn down because you failed to pay a small fee, the police can equally do the same with their duties if they see a crime happening to someone they don't owe subscription services to through their company.

The majority of the work done by the police isn't crime prevention - it is crime investigation.

Indeed, but a duty is also to prevent crimes in progress if they can. An officer has an obligation to help me, when he's on duty. He cannot walk past me getting m ass kicked. Except, he could under this new system, unless you paid the fee.

And you can bet those who had more money and paid for "higher level subscription servces" there would be preferential treatment, too. You can apply this to the courts, the police, etc. Libertarianism has universal application!
.

 

[samsmart]

Absolutely sure. Many Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists using the term "Libertarians" as a clown costume. Those who aren't, are only slightly less extreme, but retardless, many Libertarians advocate this model of public service based on the same principles less extreme ones hold, but don't.

The ones who do not just aren't following their ideology to its logical conclusion. They are like moderate Christians, who are cherry pickers of ideology. I have even less regard for the moderate Libertarians, because they can't even apply their ideology consistently. They go "well, let's stop here, but not there!" Taxation THEFT!!! except for this and that!"

Umm, no. Just like there are a wide variety of Christian denominations, there's a wide variety of factions who call themselves "Libertarians."

Is there a faction of anarcho-capitalists among libertarians? Yes there are. However, they are not the sole type of libertarian.

There's also states' rights libertarians. These are not necessarily anarcho-capitalists at all. Rather, they merely believe that local government can better serve the needs of it's constituency than a far off centralized government. For these libertarians, it's not necessarily that they are against collectivism, but rather small social groups should have the freedom to determine for themselves what is best for them, as different environments and cultures require different types of customs and laws.

There's also the social libertarians who are concerned more with social liberties than they do with economic liberties. They care less about taxes and more about ensuring freedoms from the government for constituencies.

So there's many different groups of libertarians, even though I don't think libertarians themselves know all the different factions who try to get under that tent.

 

[Technocratic]

Umm, no. Just like there are a wide variety of Christian denominations, there's a wide variety of factions who call themselves "Libertarians."

Is there a faction of anarcho-capitalists among libertarians? Yes there are. However, they are not the sole type of libertarian.

There's also states' rights libertarians. These are not necessarily anarcho-capitalists at all. Rather, they merely believe that local government can better serve the needs of it's constituency than a far off centralized government. For these libertarians, it's not necessarily that they are against collectivism, but rather small social groups should have the freedom to determine for themselves what is best for them, as different environments and cultures require different types of customs and laws.

There's also the social libertarians who are concerned more with social liberties than they do with economic liberties. They care less about taxes and more about ensuring freedoms from the government for constituencies.

So there's many different groups of libertarians, even though I don't think libertarians themselves know all the different factions who try to get under that tent.

Yes, there are various flavours of Libertarian, but they are all basically operating off of the same, or very similiar, principles. They just come to different (slightly) conclusions. Often, the differences are arbitrary. A "moderate" centrist is just someone who sits on top of the fence and straddles both sides. They are the "mindless middle." Likewise, we have a massive group of Narcs who are Libertarians amid a sea of other variants worshipping the same ideals, but not following through the with logic. They stop at various "comfortable arbitrary points along the continuum."

Most these people who claim to be moderate libertarians are just like those moderate CHristians. They choose not to go where where the principles lead them. Some hate the feds, but not the states. Some hate the states, but not their local, some hate their local, and want syndicates, etc. It's just one progression on a continuum of application.

I have yet to meet a single mainstream Libertarian who doesn't chant the Litanty of the Market and Privationzation while hating on government.

 

[samsmart]

I agree now they don't, but they would under a Libertarian system. If a fire department can watch your house burn down because you failed to pay a small fee, the police can equally do the same with their duties if they see a crime happening to someone they don't owe subscription services to through their company.

One could argue that if someone doesn't deem fit to pay subscription services, then that person doesn't see the worth in having crimes prevented against them.

Indeed, but a duty is also to prevent crimes in progress if they can. An officer has an obligation to help me, when he's on duty. He cannot walk past me getting m ass kicked. Except, he could under this new system, unless you paid the fee.

Then people should pay the fee if they want police protection. Why one group have to pay for what happens to another group? Rather, that group should take measures to protect themselves, and find ways to pay for it.

And you can bet those who had more money and paid for "higher level subscription servces" there would be preferential treatment, too. You can apply this to the courts, the police, etc. Libertarianism has universal application!
.

I really hate to tell you this but if you don't think preferential treatment applies to the courts and police nowadays then you are incredibly naive.

 

[Technocratic]

One could argue that if someone doesn't deem fit to pay subscription services, then that person doesn't see the worth in having crimes prevented against them.

Or maybe, they are just stupid? Do you think stupid, short-sighted people should die? People are retarded. They need to be protected for their own good.

Or consider a competitive environment. Even if they do pay, the system can still fail, and non-paid competitors certanly won't help you.
What if there are multiple service providers, and they are all subcription based. The one you pay for may not make it because it goes out of business? Or what if it raises its rates, and you switch to another you haven't paid yet? The companies you didn't have a subcription to have no obligation to help you, even if they are close by and can stop it. Oops, no service, and your house burns down.

What if the companies want to keep charging more and more for less and less, kina like cable companies? You can't really cancel the service, given they have you over a barrel. This isn't luxury items we are talking about where lack of service due to cost can be ignored.

It's also personally more expensive for an individual to pay for all these services than to distribute the cost across a collective.

I really hate to tell you this but if you don't think preferential treatment applies to the courts and police nowadays then you are incredibly naive.

Of coures it happens. It would only be far worse and more blatant in a private "for profit" system.

 

[samsmart]

Yes, there are various flavours of Libertarian, but they are all basically operating off of the same, or very similiar, principles. They just come to different (slightly) conclusions. Often, the differences are arbitrary. A "moderate" centrist is just someone who sits on top of the fence and straddles both sides. They are the "mindless middle." Likewise, we have a massive group of Narcs who are Libertarians amid a sea of other variants worshipping the same ideals, but not following through the with logic. They stop at various "comfortable arbitrary points along the continuum."

Maybe, but you could argue that ALL -ism are just various "comfortable arbitrary points along the continuum." But if you do that large enough, then one could say that there's no real difference between capitalism and communism. But details do matter, especially details on specific issues.

Most these people who claim to be moderate libertarians are just like those moderate CHristians. They choose not to go where where the principles lead them. Some hate the feds, but not the states. Some hate the states, but not their local, some hate their local, and want syndicates, etc. It's just one progression on a continuum of application.

So you're saying that people should be led by the dogma of philosophical principles rather than taking philosophical principles and tailoring them to their worldview? That's a very undynamic way of looking at how people, and the ideas they put forth, evolve.

I have yet to meet a single mainstream Libertarian who doesn't chant the Litanty of the Market and Privationzation while hating on government.

That's because they view the government as impediments to businesses. Why would they not hate on something they see as prohibitive? That's like being surprised that you have yet to meet a single Christian who can say something nice about Satan.

 

[Technocratic]

Maybe, but you could argue that ALL -ism are just various "comfortable arbitrary points along the continuum." But if you do that large enough, then one could say that there's no real difference between capitalism and communism. But details do matter, especially details on specific issues.

Except, the principles of Communism and Capitalism, and the ethical reasoning behind them, are very different. Libertarians of all flavours operate on the same principles, the same authorites, etc. Some just aren't comfortble applying those principles. Communists and Capitaliss aren't even operating on the same ideoloical values and axioms. The only thing similiar about Communists is the faith-based nature of their system just like Libertarianism. Both are political religions.

So you're saying that people should be led by the dogma of philosophical principles rather than taking philosophical principles and tailoring them to their worldview? That's a very undynamic way of looking at how people, and the ideas they put forth, evolve.

I am asking that people be consistent and reason out where their principles ultimately lead them, good or bad, and then reflect on those principles.. Not to go "well, I don't like where this may led, so I will just stop at some arbitrary point because it feels good."

That's because they view the government as impediments to businesses. Why would they not hate on something they see as prohibitive? That's like being surprised that you have yet to meet a single Christian who can say something nice about Satan.

I know. I am not surprised. I expect it. Which is why I don't think it's unfair to generalize about Libertarians regarding it. No matter how moderate they are, they all chant the Litany, just some apply it more consistently and further than others. The principles are the problem, as they give rise to teh mdoels. If you look a Libertarian values and principles, there is no justification for cherry picking.

Just look at the whole taxes = theft nonsense. It's a great illustration of the inconsistency. SOmethng's only tax theft when they don't approe, and each person has the different "stop point" of where theft isn't theft or is okay. Then they get all high and mighty on the things they don't support theft for. It's absurd.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Except, the principles of Communism and Capitalism, and the ethical reasoning behind them, are very different. Libertarians of all flavours operate on the same principles, the same authorites, etc. Some just aren't comfortble applying those principles. Communists and Capitaliss aren't even operating on the same ideoloical values and axioms. The only thing similiar about Communists is the faith-based nature of their system just like Libertarianism. Both are political religions.

I see capitalism leading to communism but not in the same way that communists do.

Capitalism facilitates the want to perfect the world around us and when we come to a point, that want is immediately sated communism can exist, large scale.

 

[samsmart]

Or maybe, they are just stupid? Do you think stupid, short-sighted people should die? People are retarded. They need to be protected for their own good.

Not if the system we create promotes their stupidity and short-sightedness. If that's the case, then all the system does is take the costs of their stupidity and short-sightedness out on those who are more intelligent and possess foresight. I don't see why they should be punished for the stupidity of others.

Or consider a competitive environment. Even if they do pay, the system can still fail, and non-paid competitors certanly won't help you.
What if there are multiple service providers, and they are all subcription based. The one you pay for may not make it because it goes out of business? Or what if it raises its rates, and you switch to another you haven't paid yet? The companies you didn't have a subcription to have no obligation to help you, even if they are close by and can stop it. Oops, no service, and your house burns down.

If the one you pay for goes out of business, then get service from another business. If you haven't paid yet for the service, then maybe you should cut costs so you are to pay for it.

What if the companies want to keep charging more and more for less and less, kina like cable companies? You can't really cancel the service, given they have you over a barrel. This isn't luxury items we are talking about where lack of service due to cost can be ignored.

In a libertarian society there is no monopoly on services, like there are currently. Therefore, such services will be forced to compete with each other, which leads to a reduction in services.

It's also personally more expensive for an individual to pay for all these services than to distribute the cost across a collective.

That may be the case, and there's nothing preventing from a private collective to form to acquire these services. However, such services should not be mandated.

Of coures it happens. It would only be far worse and more blatant in a private "for profit" system.

But then again one could argue that if one group of persons provide greater economic benefit to a group, there is no reason to disallow greater protections for them in order to maintain that economic benefit.

 

[samsmart]

Except, the principles of Communism and Capitalism, and the ethical reasoning behind them, are very different. Libertarians of all flavours operate on the same principles, the same authorites, etc. Some just aren't comfortble applying those principles. Communists and Capitaliss aren't even operating on the same ideoloical values and axioms. The only thing similiar about Communists is the faith-based nature of their system just like Libertarianism. Both are political religions.

Yes. But the same goes for libertarians, and the different groups within them. If you are unable to see those different groups within the factions of people who call themselves "libertarians" that is not their fault.

I am asking that people be consistent and reason out where their principles ultimately lead them, good or bad, and then reflect on those principles.. Not to go "well, I don't like where this may led, so I will just stop at some arbitrary point because it feels good."

But we all have stopping points on issues based on what we believe will give us the best advantage for whatever our agenda is. That's not inconsistency - that's enlightened self-interest.

I know. I am not surprised. I expect it. Which is why I don't think it's unfair to generalize about Libertarians regarding it. No matter how moderate they are, they all chant the Litany, just some apply it more consistently and further than others. The principles are the problem, as they give rise to teh mdoels. If you look a Libertarian values and principles, there is no justification for cherry picking.

Just look at the whole taxes = theft nonsense. It's a great illustration of the inconsistency. SOmethng's only tax theft when they don't approe, and each person has the different "stop point" of where theft isn't theft or is okay. Then they get all high and mighty on the things they don't support theft for. It's absurd.

Again, that's because of enlightened self-interest, which is a hallmark of libertarian philosophy. The people should only support the government insofar as it supports their interests. Once the government no longer supports the interests of its' people, it becomes a tyranny. It's as simple as that.

 

[Technocratic]

If the one you pay for goes out of business, then get service from another business. If you haven't paid yet for the service, then maybe you should cut costs so you are to pay for it.

That assumes you have all the time and information in the world to do that and the problem doesn't happen just while your company is going bankrupt, and cannot help you. You could always go to another company...if it's within reasonable distance and affordable, and IF you happen to have the time to do that. Plenty of ifs while your house is burning down.

I couldn't even switch my cable provider fast, much less be expected to in this type of issue.

.

In a libertarian society there is no monopoly on services, like there are currently. Therefore, such services will be forced to compete with each other, which leads to a reduction in services.

Even in a competitive market, companies still screw you, only it doesn't matter as much because the services aren't necessary most of the time. Competitive or not, when you got an essential service, the provider has an advantage over you, and if they are being paid to give it, you are at their mercy. That's why I have a multiplicity of insurance options, but they all suck. My only options are to pay or not get the service.

That may be the case, and there's nothing preventing from a private collective to form to acquire these services. However, such services should not be mandated.

NOthing technically, no, but practically, yes. Private collectives rarely work because people do not have the time and resources to make them work. There is also the problem of scope and organization that independent small groups cannot have. If enough people do not join your group, your group is entirely useless.

But then again one could argue that if one group of persons provide greater economic benefit to a group, there is no reason to disallow greater protections for them in order to maintain that economic benefit.

Not a practical reason, but an ethical one, yes. That system is basically "whoever has the most money gets justice."

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Because the point of this thread is to show the failure of a model that Libertarians want to adopt?

In other words, you believe that the Libertarian model would be one of 'every man for himself' and not supportive of a locally run emergency service which provided such services?

That is different how, than what we have now.

People who currently live outside of city limits often have to pay a fee for such so-called 'free' services now. I live within the city and while there is no 'emergency services fee' on my property tax bill, you can bet your bippy that we are already paying for said services. What would be the difference if I lived inside the city limits and paid for emergency services through a privately run agency? I pay either way - difference is, that my monies would go to whom I wanted it to go (or anyone else, for that matter) instead of being handled by a corrupt government system who doled it out as they see fit.

I don't understand what your point is. If I made the choice to not pay for emergency services, then I wouldn't expect to receive those services. That seems pretty simple to me.

 

[samsmart]

That assumes you have all the time and information in the world to do that and the problem doesn't happen just while your company is going bankrupt, and cannot help you. You could always go to another company...if it's within reasonable distance and affordable, and IF you happen to have the time to do that. Plenty of ifs while your house is burning down.

I couldn't even switch my cable provider fast, much less be expected to in this type of issue.

If you live in an area that cannot economically sustain a service, then it doesn't matter if the service is privatized or tax-based - you're not going to get that service. Therefore, the burden is on the individual to deal with issues. That includes possibly going without. And if that's the case, don't live in an economically area that's economically unsustainable for services.

Even in a competitive market, companies still screw you, only it doesn't matter as much because the services aren't necessary most of the time. Competitive or not, when you got an essential service, the provider has an advantage over you, and if they are being paid to give it, you are at their mercy. That's why I have a multiplicity of insurance options, but they all suck. My only options are to pay or not get the service.

If one does not want to get screwed by companies that offer a service then one always has the option to attain that service themselves. There's nothing stopping a person from taking their own steps towards fire prevention or building a water tank for deal with fire emergencies.

NOthing technically, no, but practically, yes. Private collectives rarely work because people do not have the time and resources to make them work. There is also the problem of scope and organization that independent small groups cannot have. If enough people do not join your group, your group is entirely useless.

If people do not make the time and resources to make them work then it is not enough economic benefit for them to have. Therefore, they view little economic risk in not having that service. And if that is their determination, they have to live with the consequences of that.

Not a practical reason, but an ethical one, yes. That system is basically "whoever has the most money gets justice."

But money is a symbol of management of resources, and societal groups favors those who can manage resources the best. That's a rational economic view of the worth of people.

And you say that this is a question of ethics, but ethics are based on values, and people value different things. Why is it the place of the government to tell another what to value and what not to value? People should be allowed to think for themselves.

As for justice, justice is a highly subjective view. And people always have the freedom not to economically support those they view as making unethical actions within their society. Which is another method of attaining justice for an individual.

 

[digsbe]

It seems this thread wants to generalize libertarians. I personally believe everyone should have access to the fire departments services. However, I understand if they don't pay taxes/fees to that service and are denied it due to that fact.

 

[Technocratic]

In other words, you believe that the Libertarian model would be one of 'every man for himself' and not supportive of a locally run emergency service which provided such services?

I believe what the Libertarians have outright stated: "public government services are inefficient, and thus should be replaced with competitive private organizations charging user fees for services. The obvious problem is that this was actually tried, and failed, throughout much of the 19th century, which is why the system was abandoned. It lead to not only abuses (companies starting fires and ignoring them if it wasn't profitable), it also lead to competiting companies rigidly helping only those who subscribed to their specific company.

People who currently live outside of city limits often have to pay a fee for such so-called 'free' services now. I live within the city and while there is no 'emergency services fee' on my property tax bill, you can bet your bippy that we are already paying for said services. What would be the difference if I lived inside the city limits and paid for emergency services through a privately run agency? I pay either way - difference is, that my monies would go to whom I wanted it to go (or anyone else, for that matter) instead of being handled by a corrupt government system who doled it out as they see fit.

The difference is that a private company can go "nope!" and the government cannot. THe private company has you over a barrel and can do almost anything they want, because you have no real alternative. They have no public service obligation. These people are a great example of what a private company operating on the same model would do: sit by and watch your house burn down and only later help the customer who paid.

The private model encourages negligence, too, for if they had put out the fire when it started, it would never have crossed onto the paying customer's line.

Fires were actually much more prevalent and out of control during the era of private fire departments, because of this type of behaviour.

Of course taxes go to pay for the services. And those sersvices are dispensed equally where a problem happens. THe government doesn't go "oops, your house didn't pay, we will wait for the next one to catch fire before we help you." What if kids were in the burning bulding and they died because some retarded fireman ignored the fire until it went to the next house? That's an imbecilic system and is worse than a public system.

Fires can spread,get out of control, innocent people can be hurt. You shouldn't have the option to deny service. At most, charge a bill after for services rendered. But nope, that's not what it did, and that's probably not what any othe private company would do. In fact, we have examples of the same thing happening in the 19th century. Only buildings with a fire brigade insurance plaque on the building would get put out. Anyone else was screwed. And fires often were worse for society, more costly because of these policies.

Collective payment through government is better than a million different, competitively inefficient entities with their own subcribers. THat's needlessly complex and more costly for individuals, and leads to absurd results like the above. Only a libertarian coul seriously defend standing around and watching some house burn down because that person didn't have a subscription to the company.

And they are entirely oblivious to why people think their ideology is sociopathic.

 

[Dezaad]

This is a city fire department that provides fire services to people located in the city. If people outside the city want to buy coverage, they can do so. This guy didn't.

It sounds like the problem stems from the fact that the city doesn't have legal authority to tax people outside the city limits for fire services.

So, the Libertarian model holds sway where the county has authority. And it's a pathetic model. Your response is a misdirection and a dodge.

 

[samsmart]

So, the Libertarian model holds sway where the county has authority. And it's a pathetic model. Your response is a misdirection and a dodge.

It's not even about that. It's about one area paying for fire response services with tax revenue and another area not paying for fire response services. If the area without fire response service desires fire response service, then they should acquire the funding to pay for fire response service, which can be done via a raise in tax revenue. It's as simple as that. If you want it then you should pay for it. If you don't pay for it then you don't get it. That's all.

 

[Technocratic]

Or, they should just bill the people afterward for services rendered. To sit by and watch their house burn down is grossly unethical, and a hazard to others' property. Even if they did not pay the fee, it is still wrong to sit and do nothing.

There are any examples of public fire departments assisting citizens in towns that don't diectly pay into them. A model such as this, operating on "profit" in a privatized system, would discourage that, as the sole imperative of a business is to make money.

They have the means to stop the fires and a moral obligation to prevent people from dying and fires from spreading. Sitting around doing nothing while you figure out if the people have their subscription up to date is absurd.

No Libertarian that supports these types of systems ever stops to think why said system was abandoned in the first place for collective fire insurance. Because the old way sucked and actually lead to more harm.

 

[RightinNYC]

Absolutely sure. Many Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists using the term "Libertarians" as a clown costume. Those who aren't, are only slightly less extreme, but retardless, many Libertarians advocate this model of public service based on the same principles less extreme ones hold, but don't.

The ones who do not just aren't following their ideology to its logical conclusion. They are like moderate Christians, who are cherry pickers of ideology. I have even less regard for the moderate Libertarians, because they can't even apply their ideology consistently. They go "well, let's stop here, but not there!" Taxation THEFT!!! except for this and that!"

Yeah, anyone who isn't a complete and utter extremist in their beliefs is just an idiot. Rabid conservatives and liberals FTW.

Believe it or not, there are those of us who can see that different ideologies offer different solutions for different situations. I think that conservatives are right on some issues, liberals are right on others, and libertarians are right on yet others. You call it "cherry picking," I call it common sense.

 

[RightinNYC]

So, the Libertarian model holds sway where the county has authority. And it's a pathetic model. Your response is a misdirection and a dodge.

And if not for that "libertarian model," both houses might have burned down thanks to the failure of their government to provide any fire services.

Maybe the reason why this guy didn't subscribe to the service in question is because he's so used to living in a society where everything is provided for him by the government.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Or, they should just bill the people afterward for services rendered. To sit by and watch their house burn down is grossly unethical, and a hazard to others' property. Even if they did not pay the fee, it is still wrong to sit and do nothing.

There are any examples of public fire departments assisting citizens in towns that don't diectly pay into them. A model such as this, operating on "profit" in a privatized system, would discourage that, as the sole imperative of a business is to make money.

They have the means to stop the fires and a moral obligation to prevent people from dying and fires from spreading. Sitting around doing nothing while you figure out if the people have their subscription up to date is absurd.

No Libertarian that supports these types of systems ever stops to think why said system was abandoned in the first place for collective fire insurance. Because the old way sucked and actually lead to more harm.

I think the "new system" is realizing that, in the real world, all this stuff costs money.

 

[PeteEU]

This kind of stupidity was common place in major cities in the US the 1800s and early 1900s. And that pretty much exposes the Libertarian movement.. they want to turn back time.

 

[Dezaad]

And if not for that "libertarian model," both houses might have burned down thanks to the failure of their government to provide any fire services.

Maybe the reason why this guy didn't subscribe to the service in question is because he's so used to living in a society where everything is provided for him by the government.

The 'failure' of their government to provide fire services IS the libertarian model. I seriously doubt your supposition about his reasons for not having services, and I don't see how this is relevant in any event.

 

[RightinNYC]

The 'failure' of their government to provide fire services IS the libertarian model.

...

So when any government fails to provide any service, you just call that "the libertarian model"? That must make it easy to draw sweeping conclusions.

I seriously doubt your supposition about his reasons for not having services, and I don't see how this is relevant in any event.

You don't see how that's relevant to the argument that a "true libertarian society" would be just like this?