Confessions of an ex-neocon

[spamandham]

Okay, I keep hearing this said over and over again about privatizing schools.  But I have a question.  What are the alternatives?  That's what no one's ever clear about.  How will children be educated?  Are they homeschooled or rely on others that run co-op home schools in their homes?  Or maybe kids go to private schools that receive government funds.

 

How were they educated before public schools? There has been very little change in literacy rates in the US since before it was the US, yet public schools only became universal after the civil war.

 

The public schools are bloated bureaucracies just like everything else government, making the costs many multiples of what it would actually cost to educate kids. The average teacher's salary is less than $40,000. The typical classroom has 22 or so kids in it, at a cost of about $8000 per kid. 22*8000=$176,000 - 40,000 = $136,000 spent on facilities, bureaucracy, professional quality stadiums, and endless other expenses that add virtually no value to the primary objective of educating kids. The typical school day involves more than 4 hours wasted on non-educational activity, meaning the cost could be half again in a private setting.

 

The wasted time is a big part of the expense. Any home schooler can tell you it only takes 2 or 3 hours a day of home schooling to match 7 or 8 hours a day of public schooling, and standardized tests of home schooled kids bear that out.

 

The bottom line cost in an efficient setting would be more like $40,000/22/(2 half days) = $1000/student. Maybe double that amount to include materials and the cost of a physical classroom.

 

The typical household of 1 or 2 kids would pay no more for private school than they pay in taxes to support public schools. Of course, once they're kids move out, they would no longer pay for schooling, whereas in the current system they keep paying the taxes decades after their kids move out (as do those who don't have kids).

 

If people prefer to spend that money on bass boats, home schooling, coop schooling, etc. provide other options.

 

There are few parents who would fail to educate their kids one way or another. Those that are inclined to ignore them, are already doing so today. Those kids are in school, but they are mostly not being educated.

 

And more families with both parents are forced to live off two incomes because salaries are not keeping up with the cost of living. 

 

The median houshold of two wage earners pays more for taxes than for any other single expense. Don't you think you could find a way to educate your own kids if you had an extra $10,000 in your pocket every year?

 

Of course there are people who are destitute and just barely scraping by. Before public schools, these people home schooled or attended charitable schools. The deified Abraham Lincoln is a classic example of that.

 

Once you know how to read and understand basic math, you have the tools to educate yourself from that point on. We expect very little of children, and so that's what we get, but there is nothing that fundamentally prevents anyone 12+ who knows how to read and understands basic math from educating themselves. They just need to be motivated.

 

I don't buy the "we can't afford it" argument, because any parent has the wherewithall to turn the fucking TV off and spend a couple of hours educating their kids.

[spamandham]

If roads were privatized... exactly how would payment for these roads be enforced?  Sure, limited access roads could be made into toll roads- that's easy.  But what about all these other roads... you can't just fence 'em off and limit access to on-ramps.

 

If roads are private, it's up to the owners to figure out how to ensure payment.

 

But here's a scenario. Freeways would be pretty easily enforced. Just set up toll boothes. Those who fly through without paying are thieves and treated as such.

 

For surface roads within residential areas, road maintenance would find its way into deed covenants. The same for roads within industrial parks etc.

 

All other surface roads are fed by parking lots, accesses to neighborhoods, etc. It would be up to the owners of those roads to work out access rights to their roads from these other private tributaries.

 

What would likely evolve is a system that resembles what we have now - unrestricted access to surface roads, but toll access to highways.

[quicksand]

As your garden-variety liberal here, I don't see a conflict between regulated capitalism, property rights, and a social safety net. I also don't buy the shrill argument of the libertarian-right that taxes are theft, as Spamandham (seems to me) believes.

 

What is a social-safety net we should ask ourselves? It's to keep our fellow citizens from poverty and enable them to get a job and support themselves. Education, healthcare, and other necessary services are apart of this. The political Right in this country has been trying to frame this as "socialism" and any form of publicly funded programs is labeled "welfare". It's so damn chauvinistic. No, its an agreement between members for a civil society. Justice won't always be done, people will still use the system, and its anything short of utopia.

 

In Wisconsin we have a state provided health care (Badger Care) for those that can not make it on their on. Walmart employee's receive the most help since many can only work 35 hours a week. Last time I checked, Walmart is a HUGEMEGA - GIANTUBBER corporation, and as an economic powerhouse which dictates what the price of what a product should be. I have first hand knowledge of this working with buyers. They set the prices and tell you how much profit you can make by setting the margin. (How about a little regulated capitalism here? Oh wait, they say, competition is good. A blazing paradox of this is that, competition destroys competition, leaving no competition and a monopoly in its wake.) You don't give into their demanded price? You know what they do? They go to China, private label it, and manufacturer it on their own. Anyway, ask yourself regarding health care - whose receiving the Welfare here? Walmart or the employee?

 

The word "Socialism" means many things its as meaningful as the word god. We are a Socialist country, but of a matter of degrees. So I will own it per a degree (which I really have no name for). Have we made the agreement between us that, stay home everyone and we will just cover the costs of your life for life? Uh, no. A thousand times no. Has social security programs made people that lazy they stay at home? To get your protected supplement, you have to put into it. Meaning, you have to work. Does the pittance that welfare programs provide seem like a better choice and lifestyle to the vast majority of us?

 

The rhetoric of "I've done it on my own" is terribly false. Completely false. Tell me about the roads you drive? Tell me about the air that you breathe? What about the water you drink? Tell me how you funded your own internet, or if you life in a rural area about the electrification you enjoy? We longer live in small tribal groups, and if we did, there would still be mutual assistance between members of the group. The "I've done it on my own" assumes a chauvinistic utopia.

[spamandham]

As your garden-variety liberal here, I don't see a conflict between regulated The rhetoric of "I've done it on my own" is terribly false. Completely false. Tell me about the roads you drive? Tell me about the air that you breathe? What about the water you drink? Tell me how you funded your own internet, or if you life in a rural area about the electrification you enjoy? We longer live in small tribal groups, and if we did, there would still be mutual assistance between members of the group. The "I've done it on my own" assumes a chauvinistic utopia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"The government did it" is equally chauvinistic and utopian. If people care about other people, why do you need government to enforce it? If they don't, then representatives will not enforce it anyway.

[quicksand]

"The government did it" is equally chauvinistic and utopian.  If people care about other people, why do you need government to enforce it?  If they don't, then representatives will not enforce it anyway.

And who governs? Last time I checked, it is our citizens that we elect to govern through local, state and federal levels. People.

 

What is chauvinistic or utopian about that?

 

It's not the government that "did it", its the government that "does" by our consent.

 

Since you don't like to consent - to make a social contract, find a patch of woods and set-up your "do it alone" society there. But make sure you live alone. You don't want to consent, and give up whatever "freedoms" (or whatever). Why run the risk of being forced in any social context. It's all or nothing.

[Lokmer]

As a fellow libertarian (though of a slightly different flavor) I must ask you, Spamnham...

 

What of the notion of social contract?

-Lokmer

[RankStranger]

Thanks all for the replies. I haven't got back to the board lately... been busy shooting things, fixing tractors, playing in the mud.

 

This is just what I had in mind... a liberal vs. libertarian wrestling match.

 

Spamandham: That's a good point about roads. I'm not sure that I like the idea of deed covenants (who in their right mind would join a homeowners association?), but I guess private individuals DO manage to build and maintain parking lots without the gov't. I still don't know how payment could possibly be enforced on a non-restricted highway. Seems like basic macroeconomics 100 to me.

 

Could you please revisit my question about exactly WHY I deserve to have everything I've worked for stolen? Care to define "deserve" while you're at it?

 

Also, back to the differing views on property rights: Do you reckon that most libertarians consider absolute property rights to be an end, or a means to an end?

 

I'm sortof dropping the public schools discussion as a new board has been created on the subject.

 

See, I still consider myself a libertarian, but libertarian thought can be just a dogmatic as any other ideology. I used to consider it arbitrarily true that governemnt is neccesarily wasteful compared to private organizations. Is that neccesarily true? I'm sure lots of folks here have read Ayn Rand... now SHE'S a good example of libertarian dogma.

[spamandham]

And who governs? Last time I checked, it is our citizens that we elect to govern through local, state and federal levels. People.

 

Then you agree that the government is only enforcing the values of the society around it. Why do people tend to think those values would no longer exist in the absence of the state?

 

What of the notion of social contract?

 

What of it? The idea that people are bound by a one sided contract simply because of the circumstances of their birth is a bit far fetched don't you think? How is that different from slavery?

 

Besides, social contract theory stems from real property, not merely from breathing. If you subscribe to traditional social contract theory, only corporations and land owners are bound by it, and only to the extent of the value of those holdings.

 

These days, "social contract" is just a euphamism for "do whatever the state tells you or else".

[spamandham]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of deed covenants (who in their right mind would join a homeowners association?),

 

Just so you know, deed covenants do not automatically imply an HOA. You can have deed covenants without an HOA. Of course, road maintenance would probably be more efficient if you had at least a very limited body dedicated to road maintenance, but that's up to those bound by such covenants. Note that such arrangements actually do exist today to maintain private roads, so this isn't just theory.

 

I still don't know how payment could possibly be enforced on a non-restricted highway.  Seems like basic macroeconomics 100 to me.

 

Have you never travelled on a toll road? Highways are actually easier to enforce since they have more limited access.

 

Could you please revisit my question about exactly WHY I deserve to have everything I've worked for stolen?  Care to define "deserve" while you're at it?

 

Use the words "taxed away" if you prefer. I don't distinguish between general taxation and robbery. If you see no problem taxing others for your benefit, then how can you complain if the table is reversed? You can complain, alright, but your complaints will fall on deaf ears.

 

Also, back to the differing views on property rights:  Do you reckon that most libertarians consider absolute property rights to be an end, or a means to an end?

 

Secure property rights are the foundation of civilization. In the extreme, where there is no recognition of property, we revert back to hunter gatherers. Civilized behavior (nonagression) is a founding principle of libertarianism. At the same time, the concept of property is considered a natural right in it's own from a libertarian perspective.

 

 

I used to consider it arbitrarily true that governemnt is neccesarily wasteful compared to private organizations.  Is that neccesarily true?

 

No, not necessarily. Generally, private organizations are more efficient because they have incentive to be efficient. Generally, government is wastefull because it has incentives to be wastefull. But you can find exceptions to both of these generalization I imagine.

 

You're right that Rand is dogmatic. Please note that Rand was a novelist, not the voice of libertarians in general. Please read Murray Rothbard instead.

[LloydDobler]

The discussion of roads is interesting. See the problem with private roads, is that without competition there is no self governing price control, and demand drives the price up.

 

That sucks for everyone involved, except for the road owner. Without freedom of choice, or government regulation, tyrrany of the owner is the result. Private organizations have zero incentive to be efficient when they have no competition.

 

Do you really want 4 freeways from point A to point B fighting for your business? Or does it just make sense to assume that almost all of us will use a freeway, so we should all collectively pay for one at the cost plus reasonable compensation for the laborers who build and maintain it?

 

2nd scenario makes more sense. Personally I don't want 14 different telecom companies digging up the street every week for new wiring so that they can hopefully unseat the dominant telecom provider. Nor do I want 1000 telephone poles down the street in the name of fair trade and free enterprise. Nor do I want one completely unregulated company charging whatever the hell they want for service in the absence of competition.

 

There are some things that it just makes sense to only have one of. In that case, it is in the best interest of everyone around for it to be public.

 

And I don't want a fucking bill from the fire department if my house burns down. I prefer that we all share the bill, and I'm glad to share it even if your house burns down but mine never does.

[spamandham]

The discussion of roads is interesting.  See the problem with private roads, is that without competition there is no self governing price control, and demand drives the price up.

 

By that theory, MS Windows should cost over a billion dollars a copy. But you know what, it doesn't, because substitution takes the role of competition when there are no competitors for a specific product/service.

 

If roads were private, access would be negotiated before people bought/leased adjoining property. Right now roads are public. If we decided to privatize them, there's nothing that says it would have to be done without placing restrictions on the new owners to prevent them from abusing the pre-existing relationship of free roads.

 

New roads, on the other hand, could be built and managed however people wanted. If I were a property owner considering selling right of way to someone wanting to build a road through my property, I'd damn sure make certain the agreement protected my access rights to that road. Failure to do so would make my property dramatically less useful to either myself or to a future owner (reduced property value).

 

If I were considering buying adjoining property to an unrestricted private road, I'd likewise make sure the deed, or similar transferable contract, included protection from being gouged on road access.

 

Do you really want 4 freeways from point A to point B fighting for your business?

 

Do you really want 4 grocery stores fighting for your business? Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be only 1 grocery store?

 

I don't see roads and utilities as somehow fundamentally different from everything else.

 

Back in the heyday of railroads, the same arguments were used to claim that railroads could not be private ventures. The Great Northern proved that not only was that a bunch of hooey, but that it was possible to build a private rail line that competed the pants off the land granted and highly subsidised gerymandered alternative lines that fell apart before they were even complete.

 

We are starting to see a return to semi-private roads already in the form of toll roads popping up around the country. That trend will not reverse, because many consumers prefer to pay to drive on a well maintained and relatively uncongested road than on a "free" one.

 

2nd scenario makes more sense.  Personally I don't want 14 different telecom companies digging up the street every week for new wiring so that they can hopefully unseat the dominant telecom provider.  Nor do I want 1000 telephone poles down the street in the name of fair trade and free enterprise.  Nor do I want one completely unregulated company charging whatever the hell they want for service in the absence of competition.

 

All of these assumed problems exist because you are not considering the costs and benefits. If roads were private, road owners would not permit 14 telecom companies to be constantly digging the streets up. Nor would they allow 1000 telephone poles crammed together on their right of ways. If I were a road owner, I would not allow telephone poles on my right of way at all because I think they're unsightly and diminish the value of the adjoining property, which subsequently diminishes the value of my road. I would insist on buried lines.

 

And I don't want a fucking bill from the fire department if my house burns down.  I prefer that we all share the bill, and I'm glad to share it even if your house burns down but mine never does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In other words, you'd like to pay for fire service incrementally so that it's there when you need it, rather than paying a bill if/when you need it. If there were no public fire departments, private ones would still exist, and would offer you a service contract that works that way. How do I know they would? Because that's what almost everyone would want.

 

There are many places in the country that do not have public fire departments. Typically the solution is a volunteer fire department. That's a viable alternative, but with modern technology, its would also be practical to have private versions, just as private security companies are already beginning to augment inadequate police forces.

[LloydDobler]

By that theory, MS Windows should cost over a billion dollars a copy.  But you know what, it doesn't, because substitution takes the role of competition when there are no competitors for a specific product/service. 

Windows has competition. They have done some clever marketing to make sure that they are chosen over the competition in as many cases as possible, but they do have competition. They price at the maximum they can get before driving customers to the alternative.

 

Do you really want 4 grocery stores fighting for your business?  Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be only 1 grocery store?

 

I don't see roads and utilities as somehow fundamentally different from everything else.

 

Well, we disagree here. A grocery store is vastly different than a road or freeway. If you don't see that then we're not going to be able to discuss this further.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that it's feasible to start a new telephone company to compete with a baby bell?

 

In both these examples there are principles we're not seeing eye to eye on. 1) startup costs are on a vastly different scale for a road or a water system, or a telecom company, and 2) duplicates of these services do not serve the public good, and also detract from livability. If there were 4 roads going to my house there would be no greenery. That or urban sprawl would be outrageous.

 

All of these assumed problems exist because you are not considering the costs and benefits.  If roads were private, road owners would not permit 14 telecom companies to be constantly digging the streets up.  Nor would they allow 1000 telephone poles crammed together on their right of ways.  If I were a road owner, I would not allow telephone poles on my right of way at all because I think they're unsightly and diminish the value of the adjoining property, which subsequently diminishes the value of my road.  I would insist on buried lines.

So what you're saying is that you would make it vastly MORE expensive to start up a company to compete with verizon or Qwest? And the consumer will benefit how?

 

In other words, you'd like to pay for fire service incrementally so that it's there when you need it, rather than paying a bill if/when you need it.  If there were no public fire departments, private ones would still exist, and would offer you a service contract that works that way.  How do I know they would?  Because that's what almost everyone would want.

So people who decide not to pay for fire department contracts and then have their house catch on fire are either left for charity to take care of, or left for dead? Sounds great, sign me up. I mean, if everyone signs up for fire department coverage then how is that different than what we have now?

[spamandham]

Windows has competition.  They have done some clever marketing to make sure that they are chosen over the competition in as many cases as possible, but they do have competition.  They price at the maximum they can get before driving customers to the alternative. 

 

They have competition via substitution. So do roads, so does central electricity, water, and sewage. No-one can charge arbitrary amounts for these because people will simply do without them. Businesses are in business to extract the highest price people will pay. If a road owner charges such a high price that no-one travels that road, he will not make money. But it doesn't matter, because the whole scenario is easily preventable as I explained inmy last post.

 

Well, we disagree here.  A grocery store is vastly different than a road or freeway.  If you don't see that then we're not going to be able to discuss this further.

 

Rather than throwing our hands up, why not explain what it is about a road that is fundamentally different from a grocery store. Better yet, compare it to other private ventures that are equally capital intensive, such as a shopping centers or malls.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that it's feasible to start a new telephone company to compete with a baby bell?

 

Of course it is. Cellular is a prime example. Did you know that Mogadishu, which is technically still in a state of anarchy, has the best cellular service of any city in Africa? This system was put in place after the collapse of the Somalia state. Now cable companies are competing with phone companies as well, not to mention satellite phones. Does it make sense to start a new land based phone company to try to compete? Not likely, but substitute srevices certainly can compete. Personally, I know several people who have ditched their land lines altogether.

 

In both these examples there are principles we're not seeing eye to eye on.  1) startup costs are on a vastly different scale for a road or a water system, or a telecom company, and 2) duplicates of these services do not serve the public good, and also detract from livability.

 

It's true that capital costs are high for utilities, but they are not insurmountably high. Private ventures dealing in billions in startup costs are not uncommon.

 

Regarding the "public good", I am not interested in that, I'm interested in the good of individuals. So you're right that we probably can't see eye to eye. Why don't you tell me what "public good" is?

 

  If there were 4 roads going to my house there would be no greenery.  That or urban sprawl would be outrageous. 

 

All roads lead to LloydDobler's house. People are not going to build lots of redundant roads. There's no money to be made by providing you 4 roads. Would there be more roads if they were private, or would there be fewer roads? Neither you or I knows the answer to that. My suspicion is that transportation would be more efficient, whatever that entails.

 

  So what you're saying is that you would make it vastly MORE expensive to start up a company to compete with verizon or Qwest?  And the consumer will benefit how?

 

Huh? Not that it matters, my inetersts lie in freedom, not consumer benefits or the "public good".

 

So people who decide not to pay for fire department contracts and then have their house catch on fire are either left for charity to take care of, or left for dead?  Sounds great, sign me up.  I mean, if everyone signs up for fire department coverage then how is that different than what we have now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Within a housing complex, deed restrictions would of course compell fire insurance. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say that people who can "not afford fire insurance" also can not afford to pay cash for a house. Homeowners insurance and mortgage companies would require you to subscribe to a fire service, as well as a police service.

 

The difference is that you have an option. You might decide to save up for your house and pay cash, and then build your house out of noncombustible materials and pocket the difference.

 

Has it never occured to you that building codes have not been significantly driven toward fire resistance precisely because fire departments are there providing a "free" service?

[imageownershipproblem]

Thanks all for the replies.  I haven't got back to the board lately... been busy shooting things, fixing tractors, playing in the mud.

 

This is just what I had in mind... a liberal vs. libertarian wrestling match.

 

See, I still consider myself a libertarian, but libertarian thought can be just a dogmatic as any other ideology. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This must be so healthy for you right now, UCH; all I can add is that every time I look at this thread, it just makes me go "Aaaaah!"

 

I suspect that you must find whatever similarities you see between the two extremes (especially the most extreme flavors of the extremes) rather shocking if this is the first time you have ever allowed yourself to see them.

 

May I reiterate my advice to just let yourself take it all in while enjoying shooting things, fixing tractors, playing in the mud and other less stressful passtimes before you try to slap a label on yourself?

 

You've come to the end of a long, hard, road and you need to pat yourself on the back and relax for awhile to appreciate how strong you are to come out of it relatively intact and with your eyes open, ready to begin the next stage of your journey.

 

Peace,

 

~me

[RankStranger]

Image- Healthy?? Maybe my recent political ambiguity (and less recent moral ambiguity) is healthy, but it's kindof unsettling. I mean... I used to KNOW I was right. I think back to the good ole' days (mid 90's) when things were simple. Bill Clinton and all those crazy liberals were the enemy. Republicans stood for truth, justice, and the american way! Why, as soon as we got rid of Clinton, we'd roll back unconstitutional legislation, restore civil liberties, unshackle the american people from punitive taxes and incomprehensible regulations... and if Clinton wouldn't leave office, we'd pick up where McVeigh left off and put things right. I'm embellishing a bit of course, but you get the idea.

 

Of course, I've long since realized that I don't believe in silly labels like "right" and "wrong". Hell, even labeling something "true" or "false" is contingent on a whole chain of assumptions. Applying this moral relativism to my own ideology requires that I pick apart assumptions and arbitrary labels, and try to reconstruct someting cohesive and explainable (to myself and others). Obviously one area that I'm having trouble deciding on is what could be loosely defined as the distinction between "liberal" (in the modern american sense), and "libertarian." Specifically, I'm wondering just how absolute property rights should be (seeings how they're based solely on a social agreement), and if (or to what extent) we as a society have the responsibility to redistribute property in some cases (I believe that society has the "right" to do that, since a "right" is just a social agreement).

 

Have you had a similar reevaluation? I'm not neccesarily looking for a label... just using them occasionally to quickly define whole sets of ideas. I've considered just forgoing politics for a while, but I'm a bit obsessive. I can't just drop a train of thought.

[RankStranger]

Spam- you make a good case for the Libertarians. I realize that you can't speak for all libertarians, so I don't expect you to have all the answers. Don't take my nitpicking personally.

 

That said, I still don't understand how MOST highways could be capitalized on. Toll roads are an obvious choice for restricted access highways. Deed covenants sound like a good posibility for roads in residential areas. What about roads WITHOUT restricted access (no exit/entrance ramps)? Most roads out here in the Dust Bowl are two lane highways, stretching for hundreds of miles with a road connecting at every mile (more in towns of course). How could something like that be privately financed?

 

This isn't a board about road privatization though... that's just a tangent. I'll get back to some more general questions.

 

Huh? Not that it matters, my inetersts lie in freedom, not consumer benefits or the "public good".

 

Why aren't you concerned with "public good"? Whether or not you choose to participate, why shouldn't the public collectively pursue its' own good?

 

Would it be fair to say that most libertarians believe that government has no business redistributing wealth in any sense? If you'd agree to that, then I'd like to pick that apart a bit:

 

Ownership is based on nothing more than a social agreement. My father-in-law owns quite a bit of land out here in the dust bowl. His folks homesteaded it (despite the fact that the land had been "owned" by the Cheyenne for centuries, and used for a winter camp for generations), and it's been passed down to him. Now, if ownership was a "natural right", then wouldn't the Injuns still own it? He legally owns the land because lots of us amecians are willing to enforce the agreement that Bob owns this land. Now, if ownership is based on nothing more than a societal agreement, then why can't society define exactly what the ownership of property entails? (such as imposing taxes, wealth redistribution, etc.).

 

I realize that there are very real bennefits to property rights, and I'm certainly not in favor of Bolshevik-style wealth redistribution. But... moral concerns aside, society has a real interest in certain redistributions such as public schools and welfare (in whatever incarnation). If poor folks' kids didn't go to school, can you imagine how many people would be underutilized? (see the "crack whores" vs. professionals in my previous post) If there's no social safety net, what's to stop people from turning to crime to support themselves?

 

Obviously people with good sense can manage to educate their kids even if they're poor, and intellegent people will likely always find a way to financially support themselves. The problem is that there are LOTS of stupid people in this world. In fact, easily half the people I meet on a given day are just plain dumb. It's easy to say that it's their own problem if they're unemployed or if their kids don't get educated, but these people will still interact with society. They become a problem for all of us. Can we really just hope that charities will step in? And will we bitch when those charities play the proselytizing game?

[spamandham]

What about roads WITHOUT restricted access (no exit/entrance ramps)?  Most roads out here in the Dust Bowl are two lane highways, stretching for hundreds of miles with a road connecting at every mile (more in towns of course).  How could something like that be privately financed?

 

I don't know. Let whoever wants to buy it figure that out. People who constructed new private roads would design them in such a way that collection, by whatever means, is enforcable. If we made a transition to private roads, there might be some that nobody wants for reasons you just stated. Ok then, those could remain public until someone figures out what to do with them.

 

Why aren't you concerned with "public good"?  Whether or not you choose to participate, why shouldn't the public collectively pursue its' own good?

 

Because there's no such thing. It's marxist propoganda designed to frame the good of a small minority as if it somehow benefited everyone. There is only individual good, not "public good".

 

Would it be fair to say that most libertarians believe that government has no business redistributing wealth in any sense?

 

Yes, for several reasons.

 

The first being that libertarians consider property rights to be paramount. The reason for that is that civilization can not thrive without some degree of property rights.

 

Second, redistribution typically benefits a few at the expense of many. The personal benefit of receiving something for nothing is not equal to the personal harm of being taken from. Net "happiness", which I presume is the goal of such redistribution in the first place, is lowered rather than increased as a result. Now let's look at what happens when someone gives from the heart to someone in need. Obviously the person in need is helped, but so is the person that gave! Net happiness increases when people give voluntarily.

 

Third, individual productivity lowers when you know your labor will be taken from you, even in part. You have an incentive to become one of the receivers instead of one of the givers. In the limit, no-one does anything or invests in anything and we return to a state of hunter gatherers.

 

Fourth, and this is the biggest really, pandoras box must be opened. In order for there to be wide spread redistribution, someone has to be doing the redistribution. That entity (the state), must have a monopoly on power in order to enforce redistribution. There is not a single case study in history where those in power actually act benevolently. Why? Because it is not the pure of heart who seek such power, but rather the power hungry. Redistribution is really just a statist ploy to make slaves out of all of us.

 

Ownership is based on nothing more than a social agreement. 

 

Sort of. The implied agreement is secondary to the willingness and ability to defend rights. That's true of all rights, not just property rights. Since it's inefficient to be constantly defending your rights, most of us agree voluntarily to behave in a civilized manner (respectful of others in the way we want to be respected).

 

In a statist system, the state acts as the central defender of rights. Unfortunately, you end up back with the monopoly on power problem again. If states are not destroyed on a regular basis, they become tyranical as a result of the monopoly. Jefferson thought the ideal time frame for such "rejuvination" was about 20 years.

 

The US has held a monopoly on its own power for about 130 years or so now - since the civil war. It has already become monstrouly tyranical IMHO. There's virtually no aspect of a US citizen's life that is not regulated and controlled by the federal government in one way or another. You can't even take a piss without their involvement.

 

Now, if ownership is based on nothing more than a societal agreement, then why can't society define exactly what the ownership of property entails? (such as imposing taxes, wealth redistribution, etc.). 

 

I think what you really mean, is why shouldn't an extremely small yet powerful elite group who claim they represent us do it? Simple, they don't represent us, they represent themselves and whoever helps them maintain power.

 

But, "society" does enforce redistribution as appropriate, in the form of expectations and norms. When's the last time you ate out and left no tip? Did you do it because you were afraid you'd be arrested if you didn't? Did you do it because the tip was witheld from your paycheck? No, you did it because you don't want to be an outcast, and you recognize that your server lives off tips.

 

If we all expected eachother to help provide for invalids, orphans, and the like, and if such participation/nonparticipation were made public, social pressure would cause most to comply without the need to threaten them with violence. Before the state got involved in charity, private charity picked up instead. Hospitals used to be charitable institutions. Schooling used to be provided for free, or in exchange for labor, for the destitute. That was at a time when the general standard of living was an order of magnitude less than it is now and people gave from their need instead of from their surplus.

 

If there's no social safety net, what's to stop people from turning to crime to support themselves?

 

You are assuming that if the state did not provide such nets, they would not exist. I don't know how you can make such an assumption considering that private charity thrives in spite of the existence of state safety nets.

 

Can we really just hope that charities will step in?  And will we bitch when those charities play the proselytizing game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes we can. I'd rather bitch about people being proselytized to voluntarily than to be bitching about being forced to pay to help keep crack whores on the street. By the way, you might want to check into how much of the money that is redistributed actually goes to people you think need it. You'll be disgusted when you learn how much of such redistributions end up helping the politically well connected.

[Guest Optimus_Prime]

yes! the matrix let go of another one!! start reading, thats the best advice i can give. when your ready, if you ever are, the battle's here. we can pull the neocons out of power.

[imageownershipproblem]

yes! the matrix let go of another one!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tolja so. UCH is my hero.

 

Welcome here, Optimus Prime.

 

I didn't abandon you, UCH, I just don't want to "proselytize"; you're doing fine on your own, and yes, sometimes uncomfortable things are very healthy.

[RankStranger]

Tolja so. UCH is my hero.

 

Welcome here, Optimus Prime.

 

I didn't abandon you, UCH, I just don't want to "proselytize"; you're doing fine on your own, and yes, sometimes uncomfortable things are very healthy.

 

Well thanks Image- I reckon everybody's got to have a hero- Ben Stein is my hero. Toriphiles seem to have a thing for me (I noticed your avatar)... I reckon to a Tori fan, a strange greasy hillbilly is pretty appealing for some reaon. This one gal who was obsessed with Tori stalked me for a while. I had to just get it over with and marry her.

 

Anyways, I was proselytized at least three times a week for the first 18 years of my life. I can take it.

 

I don't know.  Let whoever wants to buy it figure that out.  People who constructed new private roads would design them in such a way that collection, by whatever means, is enforcable.  If we made a transition to private roads, there might be some that nobody wants for reasons you just stated.  Ok then, those could remain public until someone figures out what to do with them.

Because there's no such thing.  It's marxist propoganda designed to frame the good of a small minority as if it somehow benefited everyone.  There is only individual good, not "public good". 

Yes, for several reasons. 

 

The first being that libertarians consider property rights to be paramount.  The reason for that is that civilization can not thrive without some degree of property rights. 

 

Second, redistribution typically benefits a few at the expense of many.  The personal benefit of receiving something for nothing is not equal to the personal harm of being taken from.  Net "happiness", which I presume is the goal of such redistribution in the first place, is lowered rather than increased as a result.  Now let's look at what happens when someone gives from the heart to someone in need.  Obviously the person in need is helped, but so is the person that gave!  Net happiness increases when people give voluntarily.

 

Third, individual productivity lowers when you know your labor will be taken from you, even in part.  You have an incentive to become one of the receivers instead of one of the givers.  In the limit, no-one does anything or invests in anything and we return to a state of hunter gatherers. 

 

Fourth, and this is the biggest really, pandoras box must be opened.  In order for there to be wide spread redistribution, someone has to be doing the redistribution.  That entity (the state), must have a monopoly on power in order to enforce redistribution.  There is not a single case study in history where those in power actually act benevolently.  Why?  Because it is not the pure of heart who seek such power, but rather the power hungry.  Redistribution is really just a statist ploy to make slaves out of all of us.

Sort of.  The implied agreement is secondary to the willingness and ability to defend rights.  That's true of all rights, not just property rights.  Since it's inefficient to be constantly defending your rights, most of us agree voluntarily to behave in a civilized manner (respectful of others in the way we want to be respected).

 

In a statist system, the state acts as the central defender of rights.  Unfortunately, you end up back with the monopoly on power problem again.  If states are not destroyed on a regular basis, they become tyranical as a result of the monopoly.  Jefferson thought the ideal time frame for such "rejuvination" was about 20 years.

 

The US has held a monopoly on its own power for about 130 years or so now - since the civil war.  It has already become monstrouly tyranical IMHO.  There's virtually no aspect of a US citizen's life that is not regulated and controlled by the federal government in one way or another.  You can't even take a piss without their involvement.

I think what you really mean, is why shouldn't an extremely small yet powerful elite group who claim they represent us do it?  Simple, they don't represent us, they represent themselves and whoever helps them maintain power.

 

But, "society" does enforce redistribution as appropriate, in the form of expectations and norms.  When's the last time you ate out and left no tip?  Did you do it because you were afraid you'd be arrested if you didn't?  Did you do it because the tip was witheld from your paycheck?  No, you did it because you don't want to be an outcast, and you recognize that your server lives off tips.

 

If we all expected eachother to help provide for invalids, orphans, and the like, and if such participation/nonparticipation were made public, social pressure would cause most to comply without the need to threaten them with violence.  Before the state got involved in charity, private charity picked up instead.  Hospitals used to be charitable institutions.  Schooling used to be provided for free, or in exchange for labor, for the destitute.  That was at a time when the general standard of living was an order of magnitude less than it is now and people gave from their need instead of from their surplus. 

You are assuming that if the state did not provide such nets, they would not exist.  I don't know how you can make such an assumption considering that private charity thrives in spite of the existence of state safety nets. 

Yes we can.  I'd rather bitch about people being proselytized to voluntarily than to be bitching about being forced to pay to help keep crack whores on the street.  By the way, you might want to check into how much of the money that is redistributed actually goes to people you think need it.  You'll be disgusted when you learn how much of such redistributions end up helping the politically well connected.

 

While I agree with much of your post, labeling 'the public good' as "marxist propoganda" doesn't do much for me. There IS such a thing as public good- you yourself referred to "net happiness", which sounds pretty similar to me. Now I can agree with you that "the public" isn't well represented, and I have my doubts about a government's monopoly on power (I'd be interested to hear an alternative), but are you assuming that "the public" simply CAN'T be well represented to pursue a collective goal? Why not?

 

I'm a big fan of individuality and individual rights, but surely you can't deny that cooperation (which may or may not be entirely voluntary) is essential for life was we know it, and outright beneficial in some cases. Where do you draw the line beteen individual rights and public good? How do you feel about socialized law enforcement? What's the alternative?

 

I'd also be interested to hear non-libertarian points of view here if I haven't scared everybody else off... quicksand? anybody?

 

yes! the matrix let go of another one!! start reading, thats the best advice i can give. when your ready, if you ever are, the battle's here. we can pull the neocons out of power.

 

I sure would like to be rid of the current neocon administration- I'm just not sure that there is any demonstrably better regime to replace them. Who am I gonna vote for? Badnerick... the guy with no driver's licence? Hillary/Obama ? Nader?

 

I used to care about politics and have well-formed opinions that I could defend... Dubya has played no small part in getting rid of those silly ideas. I guess I'm looking for something to replace them with, and if I'm honest with myself, I'm coming up with "hell, I don't know".

[spamandham]

While I agree with much of your post, labeling 'the public good' as "marxist propoganda" doesn't do much for me.

 

Marrx didn't coin the expression "public good", but he was the first to really use it for the promotion of an idealogy, and so in that sense it's a Marxist expression.

 

The point is that all good/bad is private good/bad. The public is not an entity in and of itself, it's just a grouping of individuals. It's the individuals that are important, and only they know what they consider good/bad. You're idea of good and mine likely differ in many ways.

 

The term "public good" is usually a euphamism for "the good of those in power".

 

There IS such a thing as public good- you yourself referred to "net happiness", which sounds pretty similar to me.

 

I don't advocate the idea of "net happiness". I merely used the term to make the point that those who advocate egalitarianism often don't even know what it is they are trying to accomplish with it, or whether using force to promote it actually achieves that goal.

 

  Now I can agree with you that "the public" isn't well represented, and I have my doubts about a government's monopoly on power (I'd be interested to hear an alternative), but are you assuming that "the public" simply CAN'T be well represented to pursue a collective goal?  Why not?

 

That one's simple. First, those who seek political power are crassly motivated to get it. They represent themselves, not everyone else. Second, even if magically someone benevolent rose to power (Ron Paul perhaps?), it still wouldn't be possible to represent everyone, because we have differing and often conflicting objectives.

 

I'm a big fan of individuality and individual rights, but surely you can't deny that cooperation (which may or may not be entirely voluntary) is essential for life was we know it, and outright beneficial in some cases.  Where do you draw the line beteen individual rights and public good?  How do you feel about socialized law enforcement?  What's the alternative?

 

Cooperation is what I'm all about. Political government is not about cooperation, it's about the unilateral use of force.

 

Again, there is no "public good", so no line needs to be drawn between individual rights and the public good. There need only be lines drawn between individuals.

 

My feeling toward socialized law enforcement is that it's a bad idea to socialize law enforcement. The alternative, clearly, is private law enforcement (which may be paid or volunteer).

 

There are two problems with socialized law enforcement. First, socializing law enforcement requires that some entity have a monopoly on power. That's fundamentally a bad idea because any entity with a monopoly on power can grow its own power, and history proves that out.

 

Second, socialized law enforcement must necessarily violate its own reason for existence in order to exist. The underlying theory behind the existence of the state is to protect the rights of individuals. But, the state requires funding in order to achieve that goal. Such funding is extracted by violating the rights of individuals (taxes). So, for the state to exist, it must violate the fundamental purpose for its own existence, which means it fails its fundamental objective before even stepping across the starting line - it's inconsistent by design. The reality is that the state does not exist fundamentally to protect the rights of individuals, it exists fundamentally to protect the interests of the powerfull. It's a lie.

 

Private law enforcement (the security industry) exists today as a supplement to public law enforcement. Why? Because public law enforcement is mostly inefective at preventing crime and concentrates almost exclusively on apprehending offenders after the fact, whereas private law enforcement takes an active role in preventing crimes in the first place, and in helping to track down offenders where public law enforcement fails.

 

Further, public law enforcement is subject to the enforcement of tyrannical laws. Although private law enforcement could do the same, the existence of competition within law enforcement would tend to put a damper on tyrannical law, and drive them all toward enforcement of common law - i.e., fundamental rights.

 

A monopolistic system like we have now, where the same entity that makes the law also enforces and adjudicates it, drives itself toward tyranny. The key to the Constitution was not so much the three branches of the federal government (which are not really independent), but the existence of the power of the states to keep the federal government from getting out of control. In other words, the founders thought that such a system had the best chance of preventing the tyranny that democracy always leads to. The power of the federal government was not monopolistic at first, because the implied right of secession and the physical power of the states acted as a deterrent. But, the civil war changed that, and the US has been on the road toward imperialistic tyranny ever since.

 

The thing that made the US great originally was not democracy, or even the Constitution, but competition of power between the federal government and the states that forced both to remain in check. We are now exporting democracy across the globe without such a check in place. What will become of these new unconstrained republics? The same thing that's happening to the US.

 

Who am I gonna vote for?  Badnerick... the guy with no driver's licence?  Hillary/Obama  ?  Nader?

 

I used to care about politics and have well-formed opinions that I could defend...

 

Have you ever wondered why you are so strongly encouraged to vote, and why many republics have compulsory suffrage?

 

It's not like your vote is going to determine the outcome of an election. Voting is a waste of time and energy from that perspective anyway, even if you had excellent candidates to choose from.

 

What if the vast majority quit voting? Then the winner would know they didn't really represent anyone and would walk cautiously out of fear of losing that power either in the next election or through revolt. The effect would be to reduce the power of the state. When you vote, you are not merely selecting a candidate, you are giving legitimacy and power to the state.

 

If you don't consider anyone to be viable, then don't vote, or if you feel some sense of duty to vote, you can always write in "no-one".

[LloydDobler]

Heh, as much as I was disagreeing with you before, I agree with you almost completely in this post.

 

I guess I'm just not prepared to arrive at the same conclusions you have. I still believe in some forms of socialization. But much more in line with what you are saying, local co-ops and the like.

 

Anyway I'm gonna stop arguing and chew on the concepts a little more.

[Godless Dave]

Look... I don't really WANT to be a bunny-hugging red commie damn dirty hippy...

 

That's Limbaugh's brainwashing. The vast majority of "liberals" are pretty moderate. Communism lost any significant adherents in the United States 30 years ago or more. The liberals do not want to take all your guns. A small minority do; most are content with the gun laws we currently have. Some, like me, think the assault weapons ban was dumb, although certain aspects of it (magazines can hold no more than 10 bullets, rifles have to be at least x inches long) make sense.

 

There are many almost-pacifists among liberals, but there are many of us who view war as necessary in certain situations. Far, far more people protested the invasion of Iraq than protested the invasion of Afghanistan. We're not against using force to defend our country, we're against unnecessary war.

 

I am very much a liberal. I'm willing to pay higher taxes to help poor people get back on their feet (the ones who are willing to work for it, which is most of them). I think the super rich can afford to pay even higher taxes. I don't think we should go to war to seize natural resources or install puppet governments. I think women should have the same professional opportunities and legal protections as men. I think gay people should be able to marry each other, and they should be able to do so while smoking pot and carrying concealed handguns.