
The Non-Libertarian FAQ (aka Why I Hate Your Freedom) - czr80
http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html
======
essrinn
The author constructs a ridiculous false dichotomy of tallists vs shortists as
a comparison for libertarianism vs statism to say that you cannot equate non-
libertarian views with statist views. However, he immediately follows this by
stating that some American Libertarians believe government can do no right and
private industry can do no wrong.

The author is confusing the central tenet of libertarianism with a false
dichotomy of the author's own construction between government and private
enterprise. The primary goal of libertarianism is individual liberty. Each
person should be able to live their life as he or she chooses without having
force used against their person to coerce them to do things they otherwise
would not do.

To interpret some American Libertarians views as 'all government is bad and
all private industry is good' shows an incredible amount of naiveté. The
author is inferring a general principle from specific arguments having missed
the primary point. The reason you see so many specific arguments against
government and for private industry in the modern day USA is not because
anyone believes that government is inherently wrong but rather because what
the government provides must necessarily be provided by the use of force. The
government's chief source of income is taxation which is the application of
force to private citizens to extract money.

Most libertarians support the government providing a few limited key services
such as national defense and operating a police force. Where you see
libertarians start balking at government services is when they reach out
beyond the scope of protecting an individual from the use of force by another.
In so expanding its scope, the government becomes that which it was created to
defend against.

~~~
goshakkk
> Most libertarians support the government providing a few limited key
> services such as national defense and operating a police force. Where you
> see libertarians start balking at government services is when they reach out
> beyond the scope of protecting an individual from the use of force by
> another. In so expanding its scope, the government becomes that which it was
> created to defend against.

But its "key" services would be _still_ run on forcedly stolen money, right?
Because everyone "needs" police protection (and it _surely_ can't be provided
via free market), there still will be armed criminals who take the money from
people in order to "provide" their "services". And as they have sovereign
control over some area of land, you won't be able to opt out by any mean other
than moving out to a different country.

Minarchism is better than the current systems in the same way small theft is
better than murder, but it's still not ideal.

("National defense", by the way, is a myth. There would be no need of one if
there are no governments.)

~~~
glenra
> _everyone "needs" police protection (and it surely can't be provided via
> free market)_

Police protection certainly _can_ be provided privately via the free market -
and it often _is_ even today, in the sense that there are more private
security guards than public police officers in the US - but we usually call
people who advocate entirely private generation and enforcement of law
_anarcho-capitalist_ rather than libertarian.

Economist David Friedman is one of the best thinkers on this subject; he bases
his views on history and the economics of law - this chapter of his book
Machinery of Freedom is a good starting point on the theoretical case:

[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freed...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html)

(I also recommend the book _The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State_
by Bruce L. Benson: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-
Without/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-
Without/dp/1598130447) )

~~~
goshakkk
(I do know what anarcho-capitalism is; I'm anarcho-capitalist myself.)

Libertarianism is a broad term. Anarcho-capitalists are as libertarian as
minarchists are. "Libertarian" can refer to either. It's obvious @essrinn was
referring to minarchism, but I just wanted to point out that minarchists still
advocate presence of a gang with weapons to preserve the "order" in the
society and steal from people along the way.

------
BerislavLopac
"0.5: Why write a Non-Libertarian FAQ? Isn't statism a bigger problem than
libertarianism?

Yes. But you never run into Stalinists at parties. At least not serious
Stalinists over the age of twenty-five, and not the interesting type of
parties. If I did, I guess I'd try to convince them not to be so statist, but
the issue's never come up."

Well I guess the author lives in a wrong country. I've ran into many, if not
Stalinists, then certainly Marxists and Leninists in my life.

~~~
inglesp
Might I ask where you're from and what kind of parties you go to?

~~~
BerislavLopac
I'm for Europe, specifically Croatia -- and if you go to any party catering
for students and generally educated people under 35 you'll find a whole
palette of leftist ideas, sometimes expressed quite aggressively.

------
goshakkk
> Another example of externalities would be a widget factory that spews
> carcinogenic chemicals into the air. When I trade with the widget factory
> I'm benefitting - I get widgets - and they're benefitting - they get money.
> But the people who breathe in the carcinogenic chemicals weren't consulted
> in the trade.

Well, actually, polluting the air is not a problem by itself, of course... but
there is another perspective: if you're spewing chemicals into the air, you
are forcedly taking the rights in lungs, fields, and other property of people
living nearby.

That's an act of aggression, and therefore libertarianism is against it. But
the article makes it sound as if "voluntary exchange" is all libertarianism is
about, ignoring nonaggression principle.

~~~
dethtron5000
The issue is not whether or not libertarianism would be "against" an
externality like that, it's that libertarianism (at least in the author's
eyes) doesn't provide workable solutions for externalities like pollution and
other tragedy of the commons-like situations.

~~~
goshakkk
It doesn't?

As it's an act of aggression, the people suffering may well demand the factory
compensates them for the damage.

But actually, knowing that it will be held liable, the factory will spend more
money on researching how to minimize pollution and will generally be placed in
places where it does no damage to anyone.

It's all about aggression, really. The factory takes someone's rights
unlawfully, it compensates for that. (And knowing it has to compensate, it'll
avoid damaging in the first place.)

On contrary, a utilitarian government may decide that having some factory
working is beneficial to the whole society so it's in "public interest" to let
it infringe with people's rights to their property. So it says, "okay, it's
bad; but it's in the public interest! we are going to allow this factory to
work and it doesn't have to compensate you anything!"

Libertarianism says that _even if_ having this factory running brings more
"good" than "bad", it's still bad, because it aggresses against people's
property. Property rights are above any "public good". Period.

(Oh, but if a group of armed criminals has control over some area of land,
then it's probably okay to place mysterious "public good" above anything
else.)

~~~
rtpg
>the people suffering may well demand the factory compensates them for the
damage.

>knowing that it will be held liable, the factory will spend more money on
researching

How will the people demand the compensation?

Will it be "through their wallets?" In that case, the factory will just be
built in a poor area.

Your 'group of armed criminals' is what can enforce these rules. The only way
the mechanisms to libertarianism can work is through the systems it rejects.

~~~
goshakkk
Well, no. A group of armed criminals is clearly not the only way to enforce
that. For it's immoral to provide anything, including life/property
protection, via use of force (taxation), and artificial monopoly isn't such a
good thing, either.

Private protection is certainly possible and is definitely more moral than
sovereign monopolist protection provided through means of aggression. See
[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freed...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html)

------
lotsofcows
Given that there's only a very occasional link to any sort of supporting
evidence this should not be labeled a FAQ. It's more of a manifesto.

~~~
rtpg
most of this is just a discussion in the abstract. I'm not aware of what
citations he would need? Maybe cite the dictionary for definitions?

It seems very much like more of a FQA than a FAQ though.

