A lot of newcomers to libertarian thought seem enamored with the social stances and either ignore or are oblivious to the repercussions of the practical applications; like no fire department or roads.
I agree with this statement. I will also say that I do not know a single libertarian who truly wishes to abolish fire and police departments. I know there are some out there, mostly new-comers but some people who sincerely hold those beliefs. But just like Cindy Sheehan is not representative of the average democrat I do not consider these people representative of average libertarians. I used to call myself a libertarian, now I say I lean libertarian because I do think there is a place for social and regulatory systems. I just think that the government encroaches too far in too many areas.
Libertarians believe there is a role for government. They just believe that role is small. The government provides national defense, police, fire, and other emergency services that cannot be economically provided individually.
...and either ignore or are oblivious to the repercussions of the practical applications...of libertarian thought.
I always wondered in secret Utopia of Greed in Atlas Shrugged if there was a communal tax to maintain the cloaking device.
Like the privation of most industries and markets? I guess you prefer the Chavez and Castro approach.
Every philosophical theory fails when taken to its absolute extreme. There are very few (if any) libertarians who wholeheartedly follow every element of its platform, let alone believe in taking it to the extreme. The same is true of democrats and republicans. I think everyone disagrees with their political party on some issues.
Agreed. That news story regarding the house burning down highlights, in a very practical way, why I personally am not a fan of the libertarian model.
Not necessarily because this is an isolated situation with it's own unique circumstances unrelated to the tacit implementation of libertarian government principles. That said, the situation does provide a glimpse of the type of outcomes one could expect with the diminution, elimination and/or privatization of government services as defined within libertarian philosophy.
Dude I laughed hard when I read that Onion story and the cartoon but you seem to be taking both awfully literally. The average Liberal had no problem with Libertarianism all these past decades until the media push of the past year or so to start scaring the **** out of people about it. rhadamanthus I admire Chomsky but the reason why Libertarianism wont work is primarily because it assumes that both the market and individuals work perfectly efficiently. Taking the road for example the Libertarian view would only work if the "citizen" had perfect information about which roads to where he would ever need, and thus be able to contribute correspondingly to only the roads which he would use. What if needed to go somewhere he had not forseen? He'd have to go off his road and take the toll road. But according to Libertarian principles the road owner could charge anything he wanted without any incentive or obligation to give you an efficient rate. Frankly you should have foreseen where you needed to go, it's not his problem that now you have to pay 100 bucks to drive to Austin and this is the only road. Mandate a fair rate for a fair profit? Now the government is in our business meddling in regulating roads they didn't even build. Taken in macro something like roads in that system could well cost a society much more than lazy, halfassed, falling-apart Obama roads built by government road crews. Chomsky really has no basis for characterizing "hate" as the motivation for Libertarianism other than his own antipathy towards it... the motivation is an even more scarier concept: "personal responsibility." That's the real reason why a system like that is both hated and feared and would never work in America.
Just to be clear, I was not referencing the original Onion piece, but rather the real article posted yesterday. I agree that recent media attention of the last few years has brought libertarian ideas out of the shadows for a lot of people but I have been around a long time and never been a fan. As far as a literal interpretation? That's a fair assessment, but to put the ideas to a logical practical test, you have to start somewhere. Like a lot of proponents of libertarian ideals, there are many individual (social) stances with which I agree , however, it is the flip side where I have problems.
To be fair to Chomsky, he has far more verbose and eloquent complaints about the american variant of libertarianism in his numerous essays - this was a quick answer he gave on a radio interview I believe. Chomsky is certainly biased towards socialist implementations, possibly unfairly. I personally find it hard to disagree with the assertion that unrestrained capitalist control only trades one form of serfdom for another. Perhaps that is too harsh, but the ideological construct is sound in principle. I think the characterizations you made above adequately explain Chomsky's fears. "Hatred" may be too strong a term, but the utter lack of cooperation is certainly not too far removed a sentiment. Regardless, your lame potshots at "liberals" and Obama make it very difficult to justify excessive analysis of your politics. "Personal responsibility" as a mantra sans cooperative efforts only reinforces the perception that libertarians like Rothbard are basically neo-feudalists hiding behind an idealized conception of "private property".
Hey on a practical level I had an argument with a Tea Party type at the post office today. He was ranting about how bad the government is (especailly Obama). He asked: Do you trust the government with our, the tax payer's money? I said I trusted the government more than the big banks. After the initial shock, which was obvious on his face, (how could any reasonable person say that), he agreed surprisingly that it was a tough choice. He ownly banks with a credit union.
It seems like this solution worked very well. The person who chose to contribute received the service he paid for. Free riders were kept from receiving a benefit. No one was forced to participate. Isn't that actually a better system.
No - because there was a dead weight loss. Both parties ended up worse off than they would have been had they been forced to participate, and the state ended up breaking even (at best) or even worse off.
Good luck convincing that crowd that not having this dude's house burn down somehow benefits society. Same thing with how having an educated, healthy, employed populace also benefits them. No sir, doesn't affect them! Not one iota! Life in the bubble must be awesome.
