26 ms·

My quick and dirty analogy: Imagine a world where each street is owned by a company. Then they start deciding who is allowed to drive which road. People who pa

by b0rsuk 14y ago

My quick and dirty analogy: Imagine a world where each street is owned by a company. Then they start deciding who is allowed to drive which road. People who pay for the premium package don't have to stop at red lights, and right of way. Freetards aren't allowed between 08am and 12am. Only bicycles with UEFI are permitted.

tzs 14y ago
I once asked on a libertarian forum what would happen in that kind of world, where all streets and roads are privately owned, if someone were able to acquire ownership of a closed set of roads that separated me from things I need to live, and refused to give me permission to travel on his roads and refused to give permission to anyone who was bringing me stuff. I was told why this would not be a problem: under libertarian property theory, ownership is initially established over a resource by using it. Thus, land becomes owned by the first person to start making use of it. This ownership only extends to that which is being used. This means that most land is only owned at the surface, and as far enough down as is necessary to provide support for the surface land. Thus, I am free to TUNNEL UNDER THE ROADS, as long as I go deep enough and do it in a way that does not cause damage to the roads. I can thus tunnel my way under the enclosing roads out to someplace where I am welcome.
- danielweber 14y ago
  All arguments are easy if applied against straw men.
  - tzs 14y ago
    What do you see as a straw man there? edit: up voting you to counter a ridiculous down vote.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Isn't this a little silly, though? It's not the universal libertarian position that all functions of governments are best served by free markets. The real position is: those functions of government that can be served by markets should be. A basic functional system of transportation sufficient to enable (but not optimize) commerce seems like something that could reasonably require a government to operate.
  - tzs 14y ago
    That some functions can't be well served by free markets and so there does need to be some government seemed to be the most common form of libertarianism years ago, but the impression I get nowadays based on online activity is that the "everything can be handled by the free market" form has gotten the upper hand. Or maybe they are just louder?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I think that's called Message Board Libertarianism.
- gojomo 14y ago
  You got a silly reductio ad absurdum answer... but also asked a silly question. Compare: "What if someone bought all the movie theaters, and then prohibited the showing of movies?!?" The thing is, people who buy theaters buy them because they want to show movies. People who run roads want them to be used. Sure, you could have a few eccentrics with destructive rules. They will not thrive. There may be innovative rules that appear eccentric at first, but turn out to offer offsetting benefits in allocation-of-limited-capacity-to-most-productive-uses. This is why competitive realms so often result in better results than those with a single, governmental/monopolistic owner: there are creative ways to re-slice a problem that never occur to a committee, or politically-sclerotic bureaucracy/legislature, or a comfortable incumbent. But a smaller entity -- individual or corporate team -- facing more directly the upside/downside of their decisions, can innovate. (Taking your enclosure question at face value: most fans of strong property rights and marketizing-almost-everything still believe in various kinds of common-law carve outs. You can trespass to rescue someone in distress; a tradition of allowed use creates an implied right-of-way/easement for continued use; etc. So you're no more likely to be 'encircled' by sustenance-denying monopolists in the extreme-market solution, than you are in a system where government zoning, eminent-domain, and redevelopment sometimes does the same thing to the politically-weak. Both have some corner-case risk, both have traditional checks. Which converges on useful arrangements more quickly, more often should be the question... rather than concocted extreme cases.)

by b0rsuk 14y ago

tzs 14y ago

I once asked on a libertarian forum what would happen in that kind of world, where all streets and roads are privately owned, if someone were able to acquire ownership of a closed set of roads that separated me from things I need to live, and refused to give me permission to travel on his roads and refused to give permission to anyone who was bringing me stuff. I was told why this would not be a problem: under libertarian property theory, ownership is initially established over a resource by using it. Thus, land becomes owned by the first person to start making use of it. This ownership only extends to that which is being used. This means that most land is only owned at the surface, and as far enough down as is necessary to provide support for the surface land. Thus, I am free to TUNNEL UNDER THE ROADS, as long as I go deep enough and do it in a way that does not cause damage to the roads. I can thus tunnel my way under the enclosing roads out to someplace where I am welcome.

danielweber 14y ago
All arguments are easy if applied against straw men.
- tzs 14y ago
  What do you see as a straw man there? edit: up voting you to counter a ridiculous down vote.
tptacek 14y ago
Isn't this a little silly, though? It's not the universal libertarian position that all functions of governments are best served by free markets. The real position is: those functions of government that can be served by markets should be. A basic functional system of transportation sufficient to enable (but not optimize) commerce seems like something that could reasonably require a government to operate.
- tzs 14y ago
  That some functions can't be well served by free markets and so there does need to be some government seemed to be the most common form of libertarianism years ago, but the impression I get nowadays based on online activity is that the "everything can be handled by the free market" form has gotten the upper hand. Or maybe they are just louder?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I think that's called Message Board Libertarianism.
gojomo 14y ago
You got a silly reductio ad absurdum answer... but also asked a silly question. Compare: "What if someone bought all the movie theaters, and then prohibited the showing of movies?!?" The thing is, people who buy theaters buy them because they want to show movies. People who run roads want them to be used. Sure, you could have a few eccentrics with destructive rules. They will not thrive. There may be innovative rules that appear eccentric at first, but turn out to offer offsetting benefits in allocation-of-limited-capacity-to-most-productive-uses. This is why competitive realms so often result in better results than those with a single, governmental/monopolistic owner: there are creative ways to re-slice a problem that never occur to a committee, or politically-sclerotic bureaucracy/legislature, or a comfortable incumbent. But a smaller entity -- individual or corporate team -- facing more directly the upside/downside of their decisions, can innovate. (Taking your enclosure question at face value: most fans of strong property rights and marketizing-almost-everything still believe in various kinds of common-law carve outs. You can trespass to rescue someone in distress; a tradition of allowed use creates an implied right-of-way/easement for continued use; etc. So you're no more likely to be 'encircled' by sustenance-denying monopolists in the extreme-market solution, than you are in a system where government zoning, eminent-domain, and redevelopment sometimes does the same thing to the politically-weak. Both have some corner-case risk, both have traditional checks. Which converges on useful arrangements more quickly, more often should be the question... rather than concocted extreme cases.)