political question of the day
Are all libertarians jerks? Or just esr (and most of the other ones I've talked with)? Or am I possibly overreacting?
The short version is here, the slightly shortened but still rather long version of the prologue/context is here, and the full dialogue is here if you're really desperately trying to unload some spare time ( Read more... )
The short version is here, the slightly shortened but still rather long version of the prologue/context is here, and the full dialogue is here if you're really desperately trying to unload some spare time ( Read more... )
(My response got too long, so I split off the largest chunk, which was a discussion of minimum wage, into a separate comment.)
Points we agree on, I think:
* Most people are good or (at worst) neutral.
* Society should not prioritize "protecting us from the bad guys" over "preserving the freedom for the good guys to act" -- or, in other words, we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for safety.
Continuing the dialogue by responding to particular points:
magical markets
W: Libertarianism seems to depend far too much on "the marketplace" to magically create solutions that are better than any that we could deliberately design.
M: "If the smartest and kindest people are allowed to have the freedom to do the most good, without governmental red tape getting in the way, then everybody benefits from it."
How do you deal with the fact that approximately 3% of the population are sociopathic, i.e. definitely not good?
In other words... I think we can agree that we shouldn't put everyone in prison just to protect us from those few who arguably ought to be there.
But if you're not going to take any steps to regulate the behavior of the worst members of society, how do you prevent those people from abusing the trust of others -- and conspiring with morally-uninspired "follower"-types -- to take over?
privately-run emergency services
W: (raises example of the subscription-only fire department)
M: (points out that the fire service was government-run, not private)
To which I respond that this is nonetheless the kind of disaster we could expect routinely if emergency services were generally run this way. What reason do we have to think that the mere fact of it being "government-run" is solely responsible for the abhorrent behavior of the fire department and their boss (the mayor)?
Wasn't there some Roman senator who operated a for-pay fire service where he would only put out your fire if you sold him your house -- and consequently ended up owning half the city at "fire-sale" prices? Where was the "competition"?
anarchy becomes feudalism
W: An economic game with no outside enforcement is a positive feedback-loop where power becomes more and more concentrated...
M: cites Mises article; "If you're in a society of generally good people, an absence of government won't suddenly turn them into power-hungry madmen."
I'm afraid I don't find the article at all persuasive; if there are specific points you feel deserve an answer, please draw them to my attention.
As for "If you're in a society of generally good people" -- I'll reiterate what I said earlier: if you're not going to take any steps to regulate the behavior of the worst members of society, how do you prevent those people from taking over by abusing their freedom?
Reply
Leave a comment