5 ms·

>Wouldn't libertarian philosophy, taken to its logical end, imply private schools and private roads, where you pay whoever owns the school/road to use it? That

>Wouldn't libertarian philosophy, taken to its logical end, imply private schools and private roads, where you pay whoever owns the school/road to use it? That is correct, though the government still has a major role to play in enforcing their citizens rights. If a private company were to build a poor-quality and dangerous road, this would amount to an act of violence towards the drivers, thus the government would need to ensure that standards are met. If education is defined as a right, the government would need to ensure that private schools are meeting the standard held in it's definition. Of course this is a simplification, but in a way I view these services as already being "privatised", except one organisation is granted a monopoly: the government! They indeed have some of the same conflict-of-interest that would scare some off private corporations replacing them; we all know that local politicians can be very selective in which stretches of roads receive maintenance, especially coming up to election time.

tbihl 9y ago
I can't tell if we disagree, but I would attack this from a different angle. Libertarians clearly want less power concentrated at a central level, but it's not clear why that should carry down to every single entity that can be called government. If kids call their parents the government for the home, should libertarians be opposed to parental authority? I think it would be a fair statement that libertarians favor a strong family unit (certainly not its alternative, the dystopian sci-fi separation of children from parents at birth.) Households run in ways that are almost entirely communist. So why should this non-profit collaboration stop at the front door? I don't think a libertarian has to be opposed to every unit of government that dares to call itself government. So let's say you abolish your municipal government, but you don't have money to pay for private schools, security, road building and welfare. Maybe you have a neighborhood watch for security, a group of neighbors who fill potholes, and a church that provides rudimentary welfare and schooling. Is that government? Maybe it seems similar, but libertarians would argue that government is a monopoly on force, and that doesn't sound like what's happening here. But maybe a few people in town saved money to buy some livestock, and now they're having problems with coyote/mountain lion attacks. The obvious solution is to have the neighborhood watch carry guns, if they weren't already. After all, if they're already out, may as well kill two birds with one stone. So now you have a neighborhood watch who's also the gun-carrying livestock protection. You can't help but notice that now the neighborhood watch is the only guy carrying a gun around, and that probably makes you less likely to mess with him. Is that a monopoly on force yet? What about if there are enough herders in town to start paying that guy full-time, and he's used for neighborhood watch too (since he's already out, after all?) Hopefully you can see where I'm going; people will naturally band together to solve community problems, and that needn't always be via a for-profit venture. I think it's a misunderstanding of libertarian ideology to suppose that you have to be opposed to all levels of government, and it's a misunderstanding by those inside and outside of that movement. When you realize that most of the popular functions of government are performed by the local (or maybe state) governments, you have to think libertarians could gain a lot of support by re-framing themselves in that way, and it doesn't seem like they would be compromising.
- KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
  First of all, thank you for the thoughtful response; I imagine we would have to converse at length to full establish what we agree on, but anyway the real value is in the process. I by no-means identify as a "libertarian", but I am familiar with some of the principles and give them consideration when pondering political issues. >Libertarians clearly want less power concentrated at a central level The phrase "less power" is a little vague; to be precise, libertarians want the government to enforce the rights of the citizens, and to otherwise leave them alone. The population does this by collectively granting authority to the government to deal out force legally; the only exception, for the most part, is an individual using force in self-defence. This is the fundamental principle, I believe, on which libertarians base their thinking. >I think it would be a fair statement that libertarians favor a strong family unit Absolutely. Though, at the same time, I would wager than purists would not support government legislation that specifically favours the traditional family unit, tax-breaks etc. >Households run in ways that are almost entirely communist. So why should this non-profit collaboration stop at the front door? In order for a society to even attempt to be unified, we must first agreed on a set of axioms, shared-truths. We may take for granted that the bond an individual has with their own kin is stronger than that with others. While we can imagine an entirely communistic network where one's personal wealth is equally shared amongst all, it practically cannot work because humans are simply not built that way. There is enough historical data to suggest that it cannot be done. It is morally untenable because it relies on forcefully compelling people to share their resources, where it is given voluntarily in a healthy family setting. Furthermore, it is debatable wether or not libertarians recuse themselves from their responsibility to be a force for good in the world, and to be charitable; they merely ask to not be forcefully compelled to do so, as this violates the non-aggression principle. The success of the libertarian approach to charity hinges on lessened taxation and regulation creating an environment of unparalleled prosperity and abundance, in which communities will humanely seek to better the world around them. I think my above points about the governments role in dealing out force legally, which addresses much of the rest of your post. Empowering local and state government is certainly and immediate goal of the libertarian movement.

tbihl 9y ago

I can't tell if we disagree, but I would attack this from a different angle. Libertarians clearly want less power concentrated at a central level, but it's not clear why that should carry down to every single entity that can be called government. If kids call their parents the government for the home, should libertarians be opposed to parental authority? I think it would be a fair statement that libertarians favor a strong family unit (certainly not its alternative, the dystopian sci-fi separation of children from parents at birth.) Households run in ways that are almost entirely communist. So why should this non-profit collaboration stop at the front door? I don't think a libertarian has to be opposed to every unit of government that dares to call itself government. So let's say you abolish your municipal government, but you don't have money to pay for private schools, security, road building and welfare. Maybe you have a neighborhood watch for security, a group of neighbors who fill potholes, and a church that provides rudimentary welfare and schooling. Is that government? Maybe it seems similar, but libertarians would argue that government is a monopoly on force, and that doesn't sound like what's happening here. But maybe a few people in town saved money to buy some livestock, and now they're having problems with coyote/mountain lion attacks. The obvious solution is to have the neighborhood watch carry guns, if they weren't already. After all, if they're already out, may as well kill two birds with one stone. So now you have a neighborhood watch who's also the gun-carrying livestock protection. You can't help but notice that now the neighborhood watch is the only guy carrying a gun around, and that probably makes you less likely to mess with him. Is that a monopoly on force yet? What about if there are enough herders in town to start paying that guy full-time, and he's used for neighborhood watch too (since he's already out, after all?) Hopefully you can see where I'm going; people will naturally band together to solve community problems, and that needn't always be via a for-profit venture. I think it's a misunderstanding of libertarian ideology to suppose that you have to be opposed to all levels of government, and it's a misunderstanding by those inside and outside of that movement. When you realize that most of the popular functions of government are performed by the local (or maybe state) governments, you have to think libertarians could gain a lot of support by re-framing themselves in that way, and it doesn't seem like they would be compromising.

KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
First of all, thank you for the thoughtful response; I imagine we would have to converse at length to full establish what we agree on, but anyway the real value is in the process. I by no-means identify as a "libertarian", but I am familiar with some of the principles and give them consideration when pondering political issues. >Libertarians clearly want less power concentrated at a central level The phrase "less power" is a little vague; to be precise, libertarians want the government to enforce the rights of the citizens, and to otherwise leave them alone. The population does this by collectively granting authority to the government to deal out force legally; the only exception, for the most part, is an individual using force in self-defence. This is the fundamental principle, I believe, on which libertarians base their thinking. >I think it would be a fair statement that libertarians favor a strong family unit Absolutely. Though, at the same time, I would wager than purists would not support government legislation that specifically favours the traditional family unit, tax-breaks etc. >Households run in ways that are almost entirely communist. So why should this non-profit collaboration stop at the front door? In order for a society to even attempt to be unified, we must first agreed on a set of axioms, shared-truths. We may take for granted that the bond an individual has with their own kin is stronger than that with others. While we can imagine an entirely communistic network where one's personal wealth is equally shared amongst all, it practically cannot work because humans are simply not built that way. There is enough historical data to suggest that it cannot be done. It is morally untenable because it relies on forcefully compelling people to share their resources, where it is given voluntarily in a healthy family setting. Furthermore, it is debatable wether or not libertarians recuse themselves from their responsibility to be a force for good in the world, and to be charitable; they merely ask to not be forcefully compelled to do so, as this violates the non-aggression principle. The success of the libertarian approach to charity hinges on lessened taxation and regulation creating an environment of unparalleled prosperity and abundance, in which communities will humanely seek to better the world around them. I think my above points about the governments role in dealing out force legally, which addresses much of the rest of your post. Empowering local and state government is certainly and immediate goal of the libertarian movement.