Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 12:58:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
573 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
[big snip]
> everyone not only has the freedom to live on their own nickel, but is in • effect
> *forced* to do so, and therefore, one will not be able to survive at the • expense
> of others because the structures of formal social government are so loose as • to
> render unprofitable any attempts to exert excessive economic/political control
> over others? In still other words, the networks of authority are too loose to
> render graft profitable?
Right. You can only bribe someone to exert power that they have. If they have
no public power, there is no public concern.
> If this is your assertion, then I say that its a fine idea, in theory, but
> suspect in practice. What is the Libertarian take on public institutions that
> benefit the public good?
All public institutions claim to benefit the public. Many do more harm than
good. The one that do good do so in a wildly inefficient way. An independent
watchdog organization would spend your money better, and mostly help those who
wanted the help.
> Can we trust airlines to keep their planes safe
> without an FAA? Sure, the market will be sifted when an airline has a crash • or
> two, but what if airlines conspire to exert monopoly control, and safety
> regulations be d****d?
It requires a consipracy of epic proportions to prevent competitors from
entering the marketplace with truely safe planes. There is no reason to think
that air safety would decrease. I expect that with engineers freed to pursue
their thing, that technology would generally improve in quality and cost
efficiency.
> What of highway builders? The road is already laid...why should they
> care if the curves on their highway can really accomodate
> a vehicle at 70 mph?
If they advertise that it is 70 MPH safe, then they may be held liable for that
claim. Courts, based on the nature of the contract between the driver and the
road service provider, would decide. If it wasn't safe, why would the label it
as so? Why not put a 50 MPH sign on that unsafe segment? It would be cheaper
and more profitable for them if customers were not routinely dying while under
their care.
> Are there, in fact, certain areas of public interest that
> can only be served by a powerful governmental regulatory oversight?
I can't think of any. National defense is what people typically trot out, but
I don't buy it. First, national defense could be much cheaper, and could be in
the hands of voluntary militia.
> Can we in fact trust those with personal liberty to use it justly
> when public interest is at stake,
Justly? Who gets to define that? I certainly don't expect people to act
against their own interests. Why should they? People will do what's best for
them. And they get the most out of life by banding together and helping build
something grand. It is simply more efficient to partner than to enslave.
> or do we not instead *need* powerful
> checks on the ability of corporations/individuals to overwhelmingly
> act in their own economic self-interests when the public good (or even
> public interest in their endeavors) are at stake?
We do not. We want them to act in their own self interest. They simply can't
be allowed to tread on the rights of others. Libertopian court will fine them
if they do. So they won't.
> In a nutshell, it seems to me that Libertarianism has an unrealistic and • flawed
> optimism in the goodness of humanity. What is your take? I'd like to vote • for
> a party other than the Demopublicans, but I just don't see a viable option.
Depends on your definition of viable. The LP won't win major victories soon.
But at least you're usually voting for the best candidate. I don't vote LP
exclusively, but I do tend to. I'm not sure about libertarianism's "optimism
in the goodness of humanity." Larry believes that people are innately good. I
guess I think that most folks are as well. But I don't see it as mattering. A
libertarian philosophy works, in my mind, precisely because it doesn't count on
anything but a person/organization acting in it's own best interest.
My $.02,
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
