9 ms·

You seem to have no idea what the libertarian position is. So I'll try to help: Just because something is super good and super useful -- and uncontroversially

You seem to have no idea what the libertarian position is. So I'll try to help: Just because something is super good and super useful -- and uncontroversially worthwhile -- like groceries, cars, delivery of packages, the production of beds, health care, retirement savings, and so on ... absolutely does not imply that the Government should be paying for it with tax money. Libertarians believe that Government is kind of like a really big bureaucratic company, except even less efficient and poorly managed in most respects, and instead of pitching investors (say) it sometimes just takes their money against their will. If something is important and we want it run well and efficiently, all the more reason to keep Government away from it. The reason to involve Government in something is when Government's unique talents and position are helpful. Most good things can be provided without Government and therefore should be provided without Government. Government has a more legitimate role to play when we need: 1) massive scale. our Government is big which is, in a few cases, an advantage 2) when we're dealing with law (courts) or force (police, military, CIA) because it's very tricky to let non-Government people do a lot in these areas

clintjhill 15y ago
For things that are super good, super useful but not profitable nor predisposition for voluntary support how does a community get those things? Especially those within the community whom might not afford otherwise? And especially when the lack for them causes cascading affect to the whole of the community? Seems to me an outbreak of disease by the poor surely effects the whole and that we all would do well to pay a "tax" to prevent that?
- xenophanes 15y ago
  If you're arguing my list of Government specialties was incomplete, I agree, and contagious disease control is a great example.
neilk 15y ago
Government is also useful for things which have massive positive externalities. Education is the paradigmatic example. Libraries are also an example of a good where maintaining the "option to buy" is potentially more important than any service you consume. In other words, having a big pile of books in a building, available for close to no cost, enables us all to act more freely -- knowing we can get more information when we need it.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  What "massive positive externalities" are created by a library? The sole benefit you describe, namely the ability to borrow books, is a private benefit. I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? Since I am the sole beneficiary, the library can charge me for it, and prevent me from consuming it if I don't pay. Why should you be forced to pay for me to receive these benefits? Should you also be forced to pay for my netflix subscription?
  - urbanjunkie 15y ago
    > I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? That actually made me feel sorry for you. Are you really this much of an island, or do you just enjoy trolling? Is there no possible benefit for me that you might have learned something, or that perhaps you might now be able to tell me something I didn't know before? Is there no benefit to me that perhaps because someone in a library showed you how to apply for your housing benefit online you didn't feel the need to break into my car? And yes, much crime like theft can be related to drugs. But a significant proportion can also be tied back to poverty. You're like a parody of all that's bad about the libertarian ethos. Or whatever you think you are.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      Is there no possible benefit for me that you might have learned something, or that perhaps you might now be able to tell me something I didn't know before? You are moving the goalposts. I asserted there is no "massive positive externality", not that there is no possible external externality. I do concede that maybe people who spend time in the library are more interesting conversationalists. I just don't consider this benefit to be "massive". Do you?
      - urbanjunkie 15y ago
        You stated that "The sole benefit you describe, namely the ability to borrow books, is a private benefit. I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me?" Do we have different definitions of "sole" and "private" - those words feel fairly absolute to me. Sure it may not be a massive positive and direct benefit to you, but I find it hard to understand how you think there's no possible benefit at all. Do you feel the same way about teaching people to read, write and count?
reinhardt 15y ago
3) for things that provide value but don't (necessarily) make money. And no, persuading people to voluntarily pay for these is not generally sustainable.
- xenophanes 15y ago
  I knowingly, intentionally disagree with the public good argument. See: http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods
  - njs12345 15y ago
    Surely as argued above, contagious disease prevention would qualify as a public good — it is certainly something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Why do you agree with government provision in this case but not in the case of, say, free education for all? That article doesn't seem to give much sway to the issue of transaction costs in letting people organise to provide a public good, which is really central to the issue..
    - xenophanes 15y ago
      > That article doesn't seem to give much sway to the issue of transaction costs in letting people organise to provide a public good, which is really central to the issue.. There are transaction costs for Government action too. In general they are higher. Government has no special ability to keep transaction costs low. > Surely as argued above, contagious disease prevention would qualify as a public good It has excludable ("public") and non-excludable aspects like all goods. It's certainly possible, in theory, to make a profit off it. But today no such thing is organized, meanwhile the Government does have it under control, and the total cost isn't very high relative to the country's wealth. So there's much, much higher priorities to privatize like the postal system or social security. I think reform needs to go one step at a time. Do I predict that contagious disease control will and should one day be done differently? Yes I guess so, though the far future is quite hazy. Let's not worry too much about that because by the time we get closer to doing something it will be a lot clearer what works or not. But when you bring up something like education, where we already have many private educational institutions, and public schools are widely regarded as largely failing, no I don't think the Government is good at this and no I don't want to spend billions in taxes on throwing money at stuff with institutional problems other than underfunding (e.g. teacher's unions and the wrong epistemology). A good transitional proposal is vouchers. In this way the Government can subsidize poor people or any other favored group while not actually running any schools. So if what you want is access to education, paid for by the Government, you can still have that without Government actually running schools. I think that'd be a good step forward. Transitions are important because if you cut off aid to some group overnight then they are going to get fucked in the meantime before alternatives are created. And transitions are also important in that alternatives are not created before some sort of transitional steps are implemented to allow alternatives a purpose and ability to be useful.
nphase 15y ago
Running then with the library example, who then would be inclined to fund and run libraries in local communities across the nation (where companies may not be heavily invested or even able to afford such efforts)? In the libertarian stance, what would the alternative here be? Don't get me wrong - I generally find the libertarian mindset quite agreeable but there are certain examples where I'm unable to reach the conclusions truer libertarians do, and this would be one of them.

clintjhill 15y ago

For things that are super good, super useful but not profitable nor predisposition for voluntary support how does a community get those things? Especially those within the community whom might not afford otherwise? And especially when the lack for them causes cascading affect to the whole of the community? Seems to me an outbreak of disease by the poor surely effects the whole and that we all would do well to pay a "tax" to prevent that?

xenophanes 15y ago
If you're arguing my list of Government specialties was incomplete, I agree, and contagious disease control is a great example.

neilk 15y ago

Government is also useful for things which have massive positive externalities. Education is the paradigmatic example. Libraries are also an example of a good where maintaining the "option to buy" is potentially more important than any service you consume. In other words, having a big pile of books in a building, available for close to no cost, enables us all to act more freely -- knowing we can get more information when we need it.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
What "massive positive externalities" are created by a library? The sole benefit you describe, namely the ability to borrow books, is a private benefit. I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? Since I am the sole beneficiary, the library can charge me for it, and prevent me from consuming it if I don't pay. Why should you be forced to pay for me to receive these benefits? Should you also be forced to pay for my netflix subscription?
- urbanjunkie 15y ago
  > I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? That actually made me feel sorry for you. Are you really this much of an island, or do you just enjoy trolling? Is there no possible benefit for me that you might have learned something, or that perhaps you might now be able to tell me something I didn't know before? Is there no benefit to me that perhaps because someone in a library showed you how to apply for your housing benefit online you didn't feel the need to break into my car? And yes, much crime like theft can be related to drugs. But a significant proportion can also be tied back to poverty. You're like a parody of all that's bad about the libertarian ethos. Or whatever you think you are.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Is there no possible benefit for me that you might have learned something, or that perhaps you might now be able to tell me something I didn't know before? You are moving the goalposts. I asserted there is no "massive positive externality", not that there is no possible external externality. I do concede that maybe people who spend time in the library are more interesting conversationalists. I just don't consider this benefit to be "massive". Do you?
    - urbanjunkie 15y ago
      You stated that "The sole benefit you describe, namely the ability to borrow books, is a private benefit. I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me?" Do we have different definitions of "sole" and "private" - those words feel fairly absolute to me. Sure it may not be a massive positive and direct benefit to you, but I find it hard to understand how you think there's no possible benefit at all. Do you feel the same way about teaching people to read, write and count?

reinhardt 15y ago

3) for things that provide value but don't (necessarily) make money. And no, persuading people to voluntarily pay for these is not generally sustainable.

xenophanes 15y ago
I knowingly, intentionally disagree with the public good argument. See: http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods
- njs12345 15y ago
  Surely as argued above, contagious disease prevention would qualify as a public good — it is certainly something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Why do you agree with government provision in this case but not in the case of, say, free education for all? That article doesn't seem to give much sway to the issue of transaction costs in letting people organise to provide a public good, which is really central to the issue..
  - xenophanes 15y ago
    > That article doesn't seem to give much sway to the issue of transaction costs in letting people organise to provide a public good, which is really central to the issue.. There are transaction costs for Government action too. In general they are higher. Government has no special ability to keep transaction costs low. > Surely as argued above, contagious disease prevention would qualify as a public good It has excludable ("public") and non-excludable aspects like all goods. It's certainly possible, in theory, to make a profit off it. But today no such thing is organized, meanwhile the Government does have it under control, and the total cost isn't very high relative to the country's wealth. So there's much, much higher priorities to privatize like the postal system or social security. I think reform needs to go one step at a time. Do I predict that contagious disease control will and should one day be done differently? Yes I guess so, though the far future is quite hazy. Let's not worry too much about that because by the time we get closer to doing something it will be a lot clearer what works or not. But when you bring up something like education, where we already have many private educational institutions, and public schools are widely regarded as largely failing, no I don't think the Government is good at this and no I don't want to spend billions in taxes on throwing money at stuff with institutional problems other than underfunding (e.g. teacher's unions and the wrong epistemology). A good transitional proposal is vouchers. In this way the Government can subsidize poor people or any other favored group while not actually running any schools. So if what you want is access to education, paid for by the Government, you can still have that without Government actually running schools. I think that'd be a good step forward. Transitions are important because if you cut off aid to some group overnight then they are going to get fucked in the meantime before alternatives are created. And transitions are also important in that alternatives are not created before some sort of transitional steps are implemented to allow alternatives a purpose and ability to be useful.

nphase 15y ago

Running then with the library example, who then would be inclined to fund and run libraries in local communities across the nation (where companies may not be heavily invested or even able to afford such efforts)? In the libertarian stance, what would the alternative here be? Don't get me wrong - I generally find the libertarian mindset quite agreeable but there are certain examples where I'm unable to reach the conclusions truer libertarians do, and this would be one of them.