NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing that I've been wondering for a while is how a Libertarian system can preserve a completely free market while still having a role for government. It seems to me that any action a government could take would affect the economy in some way. A military, for example, is effectively a state-owned industry. So is law enforcement. Laws against theft and murder artificially raise prices of said actions. How does a Libertarian system justify any of these things? It would seem that the only way a government could do anything and still maintain an intact free market would be to take direct economic action to counter its own economic effects, something which doesn't seem to be allowed under Libertarianism.

Libertarians usually accept that there are some exceptions in the market, ie public goods.

Adam Smith first mentioned them, and they are Law Enforcement inside and outside (ie defence) and "Public Works"

There can be debate about some public goods, but in general most people would accept that there would be too few light houses, minor roads and the like if people would have to make money of them in order to build them.

To Adam Smith that kind of thing wasn't an interference in the market (which didn't exist as a concept as such just yet), but rather a necessity for it even to exist.

Like Modern Liberals, Modern Libertarians will be forced to accept compromises in ideology in favour of a functional system.

Libertarians usually accept that there are some exceptions in the market, ie public goods.

Adam Smith first mentioned them, and they are Law Enforcement inside and outside (ie defence) and "Public Works"

There can be debate about some public goods, but in general most people would accept that there would be too few light houses, minor roads and the like if people would have to make money of them in order to build them.

To Adam Smith that kind of thing wasn't an interference in the market (which didn't exist as a concept as such just yet), but rather a necessity for it even to exist.

My problem is less with whether or not this stuff is necessary. I recognize that most Libertarians think of government as having a few basic roles it needs to play. What I don't exactly get is how a successful free market can function if there are nationalized industries, artificially raised prices, etc. Most libertarians tout the benefits their system gets economically, but if the system isn't really free, how do those benefits exist?

Most libertarians tout the benefits their system gets economically, but if the system isn't really free, how do those benefits exist?
What they really do want though is efficiency - all resources being used to their maximum effect.
The market normally does that, and libertarians would argue that it almost always does it, and Anarcho-Capitalists would argue that it always 100% does it.

But when it doesn't, then a Libertarian shouldn't have any problems with intervening in the market in order to make it work the way it potentially could.

And besides, things like the Military, while having an effect on other industries, I don't think that effect is much different from what it would be if private firms did it - guns would still have to be made and sold.

And then I think there may be a peculiar type of Libertarian who also recognises that externalities exist, but so far I don't think I've met one on these forums.

What they really do want though is efficiency - all resources being used to their maximum effect.
The market normally does that, and libertarians would argue that it almost always does it, and Anarcho-Capitalists would argue that it always 100% does it.

But when it doesn't, then a Libertarian shouldn't have any problems with intervening in the market in order to make it work the way it potentially could.

And besides, things like the Military, while having an effect on other industries, I don't think that effect is much different from what it would be if private firms did it - guns would still have to be made and sold.

And then I think there may be a peculiar type of Libertarian who also recognises that externalities exist, but so far I don't think I've met one on these forums.

But the "When it doesn't work, you intervene" thing is basically Keynesian socialism. It's the opposite of Libertarianism.

As for the military issue, the problem is not so much that the military exists as that it's a government-controlled monopoly. That would mean it can set prices for its services without control from the market system.

But the "When it doesn't work, you intervene" thing is basically Keynesian socialism. It's the opposite of Libertarianism.
Perhaps not the exact opposite...but who says Keynes was wrong? Many count him among the typical individualist Anglo-Saxon thinkers.
A Libertarian that believes there should be a government, however small, obviously thinks that there are some things the market cannot do on its own - although some may never have formulated it that way.

As for the military issue, the problem is not so much that the military exists as that it's a government-controlled monopoly. That would mean it can set prices for its services without control from the market system.
The idea is that there are non-monetary benefits from allowing this. Not only does a government have enormous economies of scale in this case, but it is also perceived that private enterprise may very well suddenly terminate services, or offer them to someone else.
Many don't think that having what amounts to a mercenary army is a good idea.

Easy, anarchism is a form of socialism, so "libertarianism" is unlikely to go anarchist any time soon unless there is a massive and highly unlikely shift in the Libertarian party's economics.

Well, there are those of us who are more concerned about morality being enforced by the government than with other things. For instance, I would be willing to accept public education, public works like highways, a publicly run police force and military as long as no government official was saying who can and can’t get married, all drug laws were repealed, all public charity (welfare) ended and people could generally do with their property what they wished.

Actually I think the biggest problem with a Libertarian society wouldn't be the possibility of a slide into anarchy so much as the very real and unavoidable problem of an impoverished underclass. In a libertarian paradise, everything's for sale and there are no publicly provided features. Want police protection? Pay a fee. Want the security of knowing an ambulance will pick you up if you're hit by a car? You'd better have insurance or a pocket full of cash. Don't work on your own property? Better negotiate an arrangement with everyone who's land you have to travel through, and so on and so forth.

Which is all well and good if you've got your own land and assets, but what about the have-nots? A completely libertarian society would quickly see the development of a propertyless underclass forced to take whatever work they can get for whatever pay they can get, and who'll forever be denied the services that the property-owning classes take for granted. Further, since even the means to better themselves are privatised, they'll be forced to rely on charity (because there'll be SO much of that in a society where everyone's valued by their ability to generate material wealth) if they want any realistic chance at all of being able to afford the education and training that they or their children need to better their lot in life. In short, libertarianism and a completley unrestricted free market would create a modern-day serf class, and I've yet to see a good argument for how this could be prevented, apart from hilariously moronic talking points about human kindness and private charity magically being able to provide for all, and people generally not being mean enough to exploit the system if they have the wealth and means to exploit it.

Well, there are those of us who are more concerned about morality being enforced by the government than with other things. For instance, I would be willing to accept public education, public works like highways, a publicly run police force and military as long as no government official was saying who can and can’t get married, all drug laws were repealed, all public charity (welfare) ended and people could generally do with their property what they wished.

Out of curiosity, what is your logical reasoning behind allowing for public education, but not allowing for some form (albeit most likely a much smaller form) of welfare?

Okay, here's the way I look at it: Libertarians want a system in which coercive action is minimal. Usually when they talk about it they focus on the issue of coercive actions done by governments, since those are in abundance, but they really would like to see the minimization of coercion regardless of who is behind it. That is why a police for is necessary, because without it thieves and murderers would be able to exert force on others, and that is why a military is necessary, because without it foreign governments could impose their will on the population.

Its like there is a power void, and if it is ever vacated something new will fill it. If government is eliminated completely, thieves, murderers and foreign governments will fill the void. Recognizing this, most libertarians would like to see a government that fills the power void without making excessive use of the power.

So I would say that supporting a military and funding a police force are actions that a government must necessarily perform, because it is in the nature of an ideal government to keep others from acting coercively. In addition to those two fundamental government roles, it may also be beneficial for the government to perform some other functions like paving roads, monitoring air quality, funding scientific research etc. BUT, those things are mainly an issue because the technology we have right now makes it impractical for the private sector to deal with such problems: there may very well come a time when the private sector will be able to do those things better than government, in which case the government ought to stop doing them. (As a side note, it may be possible for the private sector to effectively deal with those sorts of things now, but it’s hard to know because extreme libertarian policies like privatizing roads have rarely been tried.)

At any rate, right now most countries are so far from any sort of libertarian government that the question of exactly how small a government should be is trivial: I say we start cutting government programs now and worry about the problems attending to too much liberty once we get there.

Out of curiosity, what is your logical reasoning behind allowing for public education, but not allowing for some form (albeit most likely a much smaller form) of welfare?
An educated populace helps the market, and thus ultimately me. Useless leeches do not.

An educated populace helps the market, and thus ultimately me.

A populace in which everyone has the basic means to live helps you just as much as an educated populace. No one is helped by a populace that is starving in the streets.

Useless leeches do not.

You are aware, I would assume, that most people who go on government aid get off of it ASAP? Being on government aid isn't exactly accepted in our society, or by most people - just based on their own pride. It ain't exactly "high living", and most people aren't satisfied with the basics. Simply labeling anyone who ends up in need of aid as a "useless leech" is a rather bold assertion - and one that you can't possibly back up.

A populace in which everyone has the basic means to live helps you just as much as an educated populace. No one is helped by a populace that is starving in the streets.
If they’re starving, they can get jobs.
You are aware, I would assume, that most people who go on government aid get off of it ASAP? Being on government aid isn't exactly accepted in our society, or by most people - just based on their own pride. It ain't exactly "high living", and most people aren't satisfied with the basics. Simply labeling anyone who ends up in need of aid as a "useless leech" is a rather bold assertion - and one that you can't possibly back up.
That isn’t what I see when I look at urban culture (just so you don’t try to pin me as a covert racist, yeah, I know most of them are black.) Many of those people live off of welfare, and supplement their income with what they can steal.
Besides, what entitles anyone to the taxpayers' money if they don’t work for the taxpayers? If you want to help the unemployed, do it FDR style. Put them to work on projects for the public use.

Well, there are those of us who are more concerned about morality being enforced by the government than with other things. For instance, I would be willing to accept public education, public works like highways, a publicly run police force and military as long as no government official was saying who can and can’t get married, all drug laws were repealed, all public charity (welfare) ended and people could generally do with their property what they wished.

This is exactly it. It would be inane to claim that market forces can adequetely dominate every area of society, just as it would be to claim that state intervention could. Libertarians who advocate the abolition of the state's military and law enforcement capacity are not libertarians, they are right-wing anarchists.

Personally, I would describe my convictions as libertarian, and I support government control of the military and all diplomatic services required to maintain a state of national security, the police, the courts and the justice system, the money supply and minting, the provision of roads and other public land to facilitate trade and travel, as well as provisions for copyright, trademark and patent registration, at the very least. Furthermore, I believe that all these services should be provided free of charge (besides the tax money which is required to maintain them) to all law abiding citizens.

This doesn't mean I don't firmly believe that all forms of industry, entertainment, charity and the forms of infrastructure not listed here belong firmly in the hands of private individuals and corporations.

Libertarians avoid anarchisim by killing violent anarchists. It's called universal and sociatial self defense. ;)

How can Libertarians avoid Anarchism?Why do they need to? :p