Phil 101 - Libertarianism Discussion

[Rook]

First and foremost, get well.

Somehow I can't see this in anyway but a fundamental flaw in Libertarianism. The basic of Libertarianism is the right to property. The right to property is defined as no one being able to tell you what to effect your property in anyway. But, what you're saying is that all and any government requires a military. Thus the population has to, without question, concede to either give time or money to the military, even if they don't want to. That in itself is a breach of right to property.

But if you don't like that, you don't have to be part of the country right? Well isn't telling you that if you don't agree you have to move yet another breach of property? Leave your land if you don't obey this military contribution of time or money. It's a paradox that makes libertarianism fundamentally flawed unless you redefine the requirement for military.

[Gelare]

This form of libertarianism, with a night watchman state, is actually fairly moderate as libertarians go. It's kind of assumed that rational people will realize they need to contribute to national defense, and they'll do so more or less willingly to protect their right to property from others, but you don't actually need to have any government or taxes or forced service at all if you don't want to. Libertarianism may or may not be inconsistent, but that's probably not how.

It's perfectly possible to imagine a libertarian country with exactly zero government. None whatsoever. No police, no SEC, no military. That, we would call very hardcore libertarianism. In such a case, what would happen is a bunch of corporations would arise to provide security services. Over time they would condense into a smaller number of companies, most likely one. (If the number is more than one you actually wind up with two very hardcore libertarian countries, or three, or four, etc.) This one remaining company would have a monopoly on security services, and would probably tie-in the national defense charge into the police force charge and so forth.

Note about monopolies and public goods: The reason governments in the real world grant companies monopolies on things like water provision and electrical power generation is because making a system of pipes and wires is really expensive; this is how AT&T justified its existence as a monopoly back in the day. Since this cost is so expensive, it makes more sense for one firm to serve everyone rather than to have a bunch of inefficient, unused, and redundant systems. Even without a government to enforce it, a natural monopoly would probably emerge on things like water services - the government regulates it to (supposedly) keep prices from getting out of hand. Similarly, a natural monopoly would emerge in national defense.

As a fun fact, the reason why AT&T was not allowed to keep its monopoly is because MCI developed a phone technology that didn't depend on that vast system of wires - namely, microwaves. Didn't you ever wonder what the "M" in "Microwave Communications Incorporated" stood for? Thus, the usefulness of a natural monopoly was obsoleted by technology.

Back to the topic at hand, you don't have to buy the police service package - but if you don't, some gangers are going to come and bust into your house and take your stuff home with them in a sack. In fact, odds are good that the police company would hand your name off to the gangers and then chuckle sadly at your foolish decision not to purchase their services. Taxes, tithes, protection money, whatever you kids are calling it these days, it boils down to roughly the same thing. There are other very good reasons to not like libertarianism - like, say, you don't want to live in the kind of nation described above - and we'll be looking into some alternatives in upcoming lectures.

[Nesslandria Haneh]

Ah, the business world. Nothing like a bit of intimidation to encourage new customers. You don't notice it most of the time, but that's how most advertising works.

I imagine if the monopoly became to oppressive, a revolt would spring up and a fledgling government would be formed. A decidedly anti-business government, because that's how most humans react to such aggression. When pushed, push back harder. Then we hit government-regulated industry, and we're no longer a libertarian society. Sorry if this is incoherent; I've been awake for far too long.

Thank you for the elaboration, Gelare. It was enlightening, as always.

[Rook]

Yes indeed, thank you very much. I think I understand all I am going to of Libertarianism. It seems alot of manipulation of verbage for the sake of making one feel more individual. Can't wait for the next lecture.

[andreasthewise]

Can I say firstly, congratulations. You have suceeded where many micronations have tried and failed - you not only have good quality lectures, but you also have active class participation. In short, you have a fully functioning Academy. Kudos to you, Dean Gelare.

On Libertarianism in general, it's certainly interesting, but I can't see it working too well in dealing with poverty and the like. Trusting to the free market is all well and good, but even that doesn't always react quick enough, and it doesn't tend to help you if you have no money ...

[professorplumbum]

Hi there, I am The University of Voremouth's science proffesor and Voremouth's science and religion minister.

I also happen to consider myself a libertarian, so was pleased to see your first lecture on this subject. I do have to pick you up on one point though that I think you are wrong about. Marriage between a bike and a man or a snake and a woman will not be 'fine' under libertarianism. A bike or a snake cannot enter into a legal contract and there for cannot get legally married.

[Gelare]

Welcome, my fellow academic, to Uantir, I hope you enjoy your time here. I am glad that you are enjoying the lectures provided here at the academy.

As to your example, it's true that the lecture does take a somewhat exaggerated tone, in that I can't really imagine a marriage between a person and a bicycle. However, the cases are not always so clear cut as this. There are plenty of science fiction stories wherein a person becomes totally enamored with a highly intelligent and life-like robot, and would wish to be married. Some libertarian societies - though not all, I suspect - could plausibly allow that sort of situation. A snake is not renowned throughout the animal kingdom for being the brightest bulb in the box, but what about a highly intelligent primate or dolphin? Or a completely sentient extraterrestrial? Could they be wed to a human in a libertarian society? There is a spectrum sort of situation, and eventually it becomes somewhat arbitrary where the line is drawn. The situations are fantastic, yes, but it would eventually become difficult for a libertarian society to keep marriage between a man and a woman, or even any two humans.

[Rook]

But, I realise this is extremely stretched, if a bike could be proven to show conscent than, according to libertarianism, the marriage would be legal. Correct? (In the most extreme tone of course.)

[professorplumbum]

Re: The consenting bike.

Ermmm, Yes, I suppose so. Although my brain hurts thinking about it.

On a personal libertarian philosophy (that might not be shared among other lib'ians) I would argue that, although legal, marriage between a man and a woman will become redundent. Marriage in this day and age is more of a "logical move" and a "law-savvy move". It provides protection for both parties over shared investments (such as kids) in case the 2 participents (or more, but that's a whole other arguement) decide to split. It is mearly a contract, an agreement under law. There will be no tax breaks or benefits for married couples like there are now.

Under libertarianism this same contract can be drawn up without the marriage label.

[Rook]

Well if you look at marriage in pre-Christian times the conscept was a purely business one. They made emotional attachments and such, what we would call more of a handfasting, but marriage to them was the combining of land and herds of cattle for the benefit of the pair. Marriage, in all its current glory, was a development of the Church as a means of profit and control.