4 ms·

Libertarians are against managing the econonomy because this would infringe on the individuals property rights.

by cx01 18y ago

pelle 18y ago
That is the original reason, but randallsquared is absolutely right that Libertarian economists from for example the Austrian school of economics believe that complex systems can not be micro managed by a small group of experts.
randallsquared 18y ago
I would agree that this is another reason, but given that I'm a libertarian for more than one or two reasons, I would suggest that there a great many reasons why people are libertarian (some of which apply to both economic and personal libertarianism, and some of which, like my statement above, only apply to one or the other). There are even some libertarians who don't believe in natural rights or natural law at all. One of the things that makes me fairly confident in my libertarianism is the observation that you can derive it from a number of arguments which don't depend on each other.
davidw 18y ago
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Property rights are one of the foundations of a modern, successful capitalist economy. De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital" is a great read about some of the problems that occur when there are no property rights. However, they are one component in an economy, not the component. And, sadly, there is no clear, easy line dividing collective rights from individual rights, although we have a vague idea where it is (communism was a colossal failure, being way too much about collective stuff, and ignoring individuals). By way of example, in Libertopia, perhaps it would be ok if I ran my own high-explosives & toxic sludge storage business in my apartment? Back in the real world, other people's rights to not be exposed to risk they didn't sign up for trump my property rights. Supposedly, in Libertopia, 'contract law' would take care of things, but in practical terms, how are you going to set up contracts so that you pay the people N meters away M amount for the risk they're taking by being around your munitions storage facility / smoking lounge? It's simply too complicated, and far easier to just have a local law that says "ok, this is not a part of town for munitions dumps".
- pelle 18y ago
  I love De Soto's work check out his foundations site for more: http://ild.org.pe/en/home http://ild.org.pe/en/home Common law has a pretty good alternative to contract law for the kind of cases you mention. This is known as Tort law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort Most people know it as the law the dodgy lawyers who advertise on TV practice. It is however a really neat concept that deals with just about anything outside of contract law. It was even used to handle things like pollution in the days before the EPA. In your example your high-explosive and toxic sludge storage business could easily be sued under Tort law. Local and property owners association bylaws can absolutely be used to spell out these offenses. However the wider regulation happens, the more it becomes silly. For example smoking regulations could probably be done a lot more realistically through tort law than through blanket bans on smoking in bars and restaurants throughout a country. Using Tort would allow courts to look at individual circumstances. Thus one punitive ruling against a restaurant on behalf of an employee with lung cancer could effectively ban it. However a similar suit from an employee of a cigar bar would probably be dismissed, because an employee couldn't reasonably expect to avoid second hand smoke in a cigar bar. Thus allowing cigar bars to exist.
  - davidw 18y ago
    One problem with simply suing people who cause damage is that in some cases, it's possible to do a lot more damage than you can ever pay for. For example, if my munitions dump business blows up and levels a city block, killing 50 people, I have no house and no business left to be sued for. I'm essentially broke, and no one is ever going to get more than a pittance from me (I may have even blown up with it). So in that case, it may make sense to prevent the damage before it happens by banning my bad business idea. Of course, you can't prevent everything bad from happening, as that would probably lead to an excess of silly regulation. It is, in other words, a balancing act, that must be constantly watched over and tweaked.
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      This is an argument for mandatory crime/injury insurance. :)

Libertarians are against managing the econonomy because this would infringe on the individuals property rights.

by cx01 18y ago

Libertarians are against managing the econonomy because this would infringe on the individuals property rights.

pelle 18y ago

That is the original reason, but randallsquared is absolutely right that Libertarian economists from for example the Austrian school of economics believe that complex systems can not be micro managed by a small group of experts.

randallsquared 18y ago

I would agree that this is another reason, but given that I'm a libertarian for more than one or two reasons, I would suggest that there a great many reasons why people are libertarian (some of which apply to both economic and personal libertarianism, and some of which, like my statement above, only apply to one or the other). There are even some libertarians who don't believe in natural rights or natural law at all. One of the things that makes me fairly confident in my libertarianism is the observation that you can derive it from a number of arguments which don't depend on each other.

davidw 18y ago

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Property rights are one of the foundations of a modern, successful capitalist economy. De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital" is a great read about some of the problems that occur when there are no property rights. However, they are one component in an economy, not the component. And, sadly, there is no clear, easy line dividing collective rights from individual rights, although we have a vague idea where it is (communism was a colossal failure, being way too much about collective stuff, and ignoring individuals). By way of example, in Libertopia, perhaps it would be ok if I ran my own high-explosives & toxic sludge storage business in my apartment? Back in the real world, other people's rights to not be exposed to risk they didn't sign up for trump my property rights. Supposedly, in Libertopia, 'contract law' would take care of things, but in practical terms, how are you going to set up contracts so that you pay the people N meters away M amount for the risk they're taking by being around your munitions storage facility / smoking lounge? It's simply too complicated, and far easier to just have a local law that says "ok, this is not a part of town for munitions dumps".

pelle 18y ago
I love De Soto's work check out his foundations site for more: http://ild.org.pe/en/home http://ild.org.pe/en/home Common law has a pretty good alternative to contract law for the kind of cases you mention. This is known as Tort law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort Most people know it as the law the dodgy lawyers who advertise on TV practice. It is however a really neat concept that deals with just about anything outside of contract law. It was even used to handle things like pollution in the days before the EPA. In your example your high-explosive and toxic sludge storage business could easily be sued under Tort law. Local and property owners association bylaws can absolutely be used to spell out these offenses. However the wider regulation happens, the more it becomes silly. For example smoking regulations could probably be done a lot more realistically through tort law than through blanket bans on smoking in bars and restaurants throughout a country. Using Tort would allow courts to look at individual circumstances. Thus one punitive ruling against a restaurant on behalf of an employee with lung cancer could effectively ban it. However a similar suit from an employee of a cigar bar would probably be dismissed, because an employee couldn't reasonably expect to avoid second hand smoke in a cigar bar. Thus allowing cigar bars to exist.
- davidw 18y ago
  One problem with simply suing people who cause damage is that in some cases, it's possible to do a lot more damage than you can ever pay for. For example, if my munitions dump business blows up and levels a city block, killing 50 people, I have no house and no business left to be sued for. I'm essentially broke, and no one is ever going to get more than a pittance from me (I may have even blown up with it). So in that case, it may make sense to prevent the damage before it happens by banning my bad business idea. Of course, you can't prevent everything bad from happening, as that would probably lead to an excess of silly regulation. It is, in other words, a balancing act, that must be constantly watched over and tweaked.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    This is an argument for mandatory crime/injury insurance. :)