Problems with libertarianism (moral, America, mission, church, experience)

[GeneCosta]

I've noticed in recent months (especially) that a large student movement has developed around right-libertarianism - namely, constitutionalism, although there are shades of Objectivism and even anarcho-capitalism (oxymoron?). I wish to sketch out a few reasons why libertarianism is a flawed ideology out of respect to these students. If you want to join along, feel free.

I'll focus this post on anarcho-capitalism:

1.) Misleading term: Anarchism stands in opposition to all coercive hierarchy - all masters. The Somalian experiment an-caps at anti-state.com champion is a complete disaster; most of the countryside is run by a single state entity. Local jurisdictions have their own governments and the few warlords who contended land and capital with weapons have managed to create little micro-states.

2.) Implausibility of justice: There is no compelling evidence that shows conflicts would be settled through private courts. I could call up my private protection agency and falsely accuse my neighbor of theft. What if he refuses to show up to any court? Seeing as how I live in Texas, I can answer that question: bullets go flying. Even if a matter did reach a court, the lack of financial accountability would inevitably lead to judges being payed off.

3.) Monopolization of force: What if I create my own private protection agency and live according to my rules? The bigger PPA will dominate little ones; oligopolies will form. With such market influence, they'll be able to carry out CIA-like operations without having to worry about major operations.

4.) Concentration of wealth: It's undeniable that state welfare reduces the concentration of wealth. Under "anarcho-"capitalism, the concentration of wealth could become even more aggressive. Let's say I enter the market with my daddy's riches. I buy up a road outside your house and refuse you passage to the house via motor vehicle unless you pay an obnoxious toll. You and everyone else on the street are forced to sell at a very low rate. I buy these houses and sell them at a large profit. I can already see the green!

5.) Poverty and unemployment: Definable poverty prior to the New Deal constituted 56% of the American people. When Pinochet came to power the unemployment and poverty rate doubled - even tripled in some instances. Marx points out that humans are biological creatures. Their primary interest is not philosophical musings about "poverty and unemployment being natural states of a free society." Materialism trumps phony morality.

6.) Lack of artistic entrepreneurs: I think I have some credibility in this field, considering the fact my job entails print design and compilation of novels. Intellectual property, or copyrights, are vital for the survival of artists and small authors. Only under a non-profit system (infosocialism?) could copyrights be eliminated.

7.) No regulation: Supposedly a whole market of private inspectors will arise, but this has never been the case. Even small business try to maximize cost. Why not just create your own inspection agency and fake it?

8.) Baron capitalism: Runaway capitalism has, historically, been very violent. In the one city of Moscow it is believed that a bare minimum of 500 people died through contract killings between 1993 and 1999. Gangs are a rampant problem in all corners of the world - rarely avoiding violence. During the 19th century business owners called for their workers to be shot. In places with no hour restrictions, even small businesses were known to employ people for 10-12 hours a day.

9.) Children would have no guaranteed protection against mental, physical, and sexual abuse. If someone creates their own private protection agency, that person would not be compelled to treat their children justly.

10.) Property disputes would be rampant. Who decides where property goes - to the wife? The children? Parents? What is a natural way

11.) Roads and sidewalks would be disastrous. Apparently the answer to this is that companies will fit the bill to have roads lead to their organization.

12.) Safety concerns would rabidly increase. No standardized stop lights. No standardized road signs. No standardized food regulation.

[Darkness]

Why are you pretending Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism are one and the same?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure about anarcho-capitalism myself, but I thought of a couple things to do with points you raised:

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

6.) Lack of artistic entrepreneurs: I think I have some credibility in this field, considering the fact my job entails print design and compilation of novels. Intellectual property, or copyrights, are vital for the survival of artists and small authors. Only under a non-profit system (infosocialism?) could copyrights be eliminated.

The arts can function with different business models than the intellectual property arrangement we have today. Through most of human history, there was no such thing as copyright, yet we had arts. International copyright is an even more recent invention - in fact, the only book with Edgar Allan Poe's name on it to make a profit during his lifetime was a biology textbook that he plagiarized from a French author... and it was completely legal for him to do it at the time.

In the past, artists derived income from other sources, such as patronage, where original artistic works would be commissioned by (usually wealthy) people who wanted them, or performance.

So... a society without copyright would certainly change things for artists, but this doesn't necessarily mean that arts as a source of income would be eliminated.

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

7.) No regulation: Supposedly a whole market of private inspectors will arise, but this has never been the case. Even small business try to maximize cost. Why not just create your own inspection agency and fake it?

There are plenty of private inspection and regulation agencies. I can think of several right off the top of my head:

- Underwriter's Labs (product safety)
- Factory Mutual (product safety)
- CSA (product safety)
- ISO (quality control)
- LEED/USGBC (environmental protections for construction)
- PTOE/TPCB (transportation professionals)
- NFPA (fire protection)
- FIA (motorsports)

Also, there are plenty of agencies that produce various codes and standards that other companies and agencies can choose to adopt or not.

And as an example from my own experience, I spent a summer working for a private inspection body: I was a lab technician in a material testing lab. We'd do soil, aggregate, concrete and asphalt testing for private- and public-sector clients. Our lab received its certification from the Canadian Standards Association, another private agency.

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

8.) Baron capitalism: Runaway capitalism has, historically, been very violent. In the one city of Moscow it is believed that a bare minimum of 500 people died through contract killings between 1993 and 1999. Gangs are a rampant problem in all corners of the world - rarely avoiding violence. During the 19th century business owners called for their workers to be shot. In places with no hour restrictions, even small businesses were known to employ people for 10-12 hours a day.

At least in Ontario, 12 hour shifts are still common in some industries.

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

11.) Roads and sidewalks would be disastrous. Apparently the answer to this is that companies will fit the bill to have roads lead to their organization.

You'd have sidewalks if you paid for them. I think the most likely way for this to happen is with private subdivisions, either gated or not. Effectively, if you really want things like sidewalks or community parks, you'd have to subject yourself to an authority like a municipality, but one where you have no right to elect your representatives or have any say in their activities other than moving away.

It seems to me like the laissez-faire model would end up with a situation with significantly less freedom in practice, since in stripping away limitations and restrictions on freedoms, one of the things we would be doing is stripping away the limitations and restrictions on one person from limiting the freedom of another.

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

12.) Safety concerns would rabidly increase. No standardized stop lights. No standardized road signs. No standardized food regulation.

I think stop lights and road signs would shake out to some sort of agreed-upon standard, just because there wouldn't be any profit in every toll highway or private road agency re-inventing the wheel to come up with their own designs. The big worry I'd have is with other facets of the roads: it would be very difficult to make other safety improvements justifiable in terms of cost.

You likely wouldn't be able to make road user risk anything other than an externality: the highway owner would be the one to shoulder the entire cost of things like clear zones, impact attenuators, and paved shoulders, but the benefit in terms of human life probably wouldn't translate into enough additional revenue to the highway owner to offset the expense. When you look at things purely from a financial point-of-view, safety is often bad business.

Some event that might happen every million vehicle-miles or so usually won't factor much in the decision-making process of an individual driver. Decreasing the collision rate for a busy highway from 10 per million vehicle-miles to 1 per million vehicle-miles, say, would have a huge positive impact overall, even though it wouldn't necessarily make a noticeable difference for the vast majority of drivers on that road.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The arts can function with different business models than the intellectual property arrangement we have today. Through most of human history, there was no such thing as copyright, yet we had arts.

In fact, most of the "best" art comes from before copyrights. Copyright wasn't developed until after, for example, the Reneissance.

[GeneCosta]

Remember guys this is the socialist only forum. I have no personal objection to you chiming in since it produces discussion, but let's try not to turn this into something for another forum.

Originally Posted by Aqualung

In fact, most of the "best" art comes from before copyrights. Copyright wasn't developed until after, for example, the Reneissance.

Artwork back then wasn't duplicable by technology. Renaissance artisans made their money through commissions to the Church and aristocracy. In terms of sheer numbers and likelihood of becoming a sound artist with financial backing, copyrights are instrumental under a capitalist model. We have the means of distributing any form of artwork via the internet nowadays. More people download illegal music per month than all of Itune's sales combined. The phrase "piracy is communism" carries some truth to it.

There also weren't competing publishers available on a wide scale until the later part of the 17th century. Shakespeare, for example, had to keep his works secret out of fear that other companies would steal them.

Originally Posted by Darkness

Why are you pretending Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism are one and the same?

Usually the two movements choose to associate.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The arts can function with different business models than the intellectual property arrangement we have today. Through most of human history, there was no such thing as copyright, yet we had arts. International copyright is an even more recent invention - in fact, the only book with Edgar Allan Poe's name on it to make a profit during his lifetime was a biology textbook that he plagiarized from a French author... and it was completely legal for him to do it at the time.

In the past, artists derived income from other sources, such as patronage, where original artistic works would be commissioned by (usually wealthy) people who wanted them, or performance.

As I indicated above, art has been the benefactor of intellectual regulation. Each year for the later half of the 20th century thousands of books were published in the United States alone. Comparatively, there is no other period in history where so many people are being judged - through money - by their art.

There are plenty of private inspection and regulation agencies. I can think of several right off the top of my head:

I never assumed there didn't exist private agencies. I am saying that there is a very slim likelihood that a majority of companies will adopt standards that meet or exceed current ones laid out by local, state, and even federal governments.

Indeed we can even see how lack of regulation leads to problems by judging the fast food industry.

My next post will address the more common forms of libertarianism, namely constitutionalism and minarchy.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

I never assumed there didn't exist private agencies. I am saying that there is a very slim likelihood that a majority of companies will adopt standards that meet or exceed current ones laid out by local, state, and even federal governments.

Except they do.

No government requires an auto manufacturer to be ISO certified; very few governments require new property developments to be LEED certified, but these things happen because of market demand.

However, I don't think the market creates demand for regulation in all cases; if you can't translate the need to maintain some minimum standard into business advantage for the decision-maker, then it won't happen under a purely capitalist system.

[Jistyr]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

Usually the two movements choose to associate.

I have not seen that, and if it is that they associate with one another, then that hardly means that they share the same flaws.

I suggest you change the thread title to "Problems with Anarcho-Capitalism."