An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

If you do not believe a volunteer army would be sustainabible, what if insurance companies handled defense?

The problem of non-exclusive value can be solved through insurance. Most people are risk averse. Therefore, most people are going to pay for property insurance. Free riders would benefit from the protection, but only partially. If a rogue missile were to slip through the cracks and destroy their property...they would be out of luck. The policy holders would all get to file claims and receive the benefit they paid for.

The US does not force soldiers to join ranks; it pays them. So we know that compensation is all that is needed to field an army or defense infrastructure. Insurance companies are the best suited human beings on the planet to do the work of pricing risk and protecting assets. We are discussing asset protection, these people are the ones that do it. The only difference between a public and private defense system in this scenario would be the management would be by private insurance corporations instead of US Govt. The corporations would be bound by competition and produce far more efficient outcomes.

Problem:
How do you maintain an army

Proven answer:
Pay soldiers

Problem 2:
How do you fund the payment to solidiers with free rider problem

Answer 2:
Premiums from risk averse individuals

Free rider problem solved.

 

You have misunderstood my comment. Libertarianism is in the same category as liberalism and conservatism: political ideologies. The Libertarian Party is in the same category as the Dems and Reps.

 

Government cannot conduct charity because charity have a voluntary nature and government has a compulsory nature.
Government must take at least as much as it gives. There can be no net benefit between equals by force, not even by force of law.

 

No country on earth effectively takes care of its needy thru a libertarian model. None

 

First, there appears to be some ignoramuses who think that PoliticalCompass is a libertarian design. It's hilarious. The designer has never been anything but a left-winger and any American libertarian who takes that test will appear on the right wing because the designer equates all things desirable with government control.

Anyway, I hold that libertarians is a political philosophy only. It is simply this: no one has the right or legitimate authority to initiate aggression against a peaceful individual or aggressively interfere in a transaction between peaceful individuals.

One can be a libertarian regardless of one's personal moral views. Most of the populace believes that their moral views are so superior that it justifies violence against others in order to force them. The religious right-wing acts on morals from their religious texts. The emotional left-wing believes that feelings are reality and the morals their emotions engender justifies violence against peaceful people.

A libertarian may believe that all people should have access to universal healthcare, but doesn't agree that violence is the way to get it. Since government can only exist by violence, he eschews using those police powers to get what he wants. Similarly, a libertarian may believe that imbibing alcohol is wrong, but he eschews using the police powers of the state to punish other people for imbibing alcohol. The left-wing and right-wing authoritarian, on the other hand, craves the use of police powers to get his or her morals views thrust upon others. The libertarian creates his own personal utopia by living life according to his or her own values and surrounding his or herself with like-minded people. The authoritarian/statist wishes to create his or her vision of utopia through command and control and punishment of those who aren't like-minded.

 

"Liberals" and "conservatives" are equally liberal with the legal use of force; libertarians are conservative with the legal use of force.

 

I am a libertarian, stop spouting talking points and listen to what I am saying. I am not saying that they are similar political ideologies, just that they both are political ideologies and not political parties.

 

And, yet, I've never met a statist who could explain why government is legitimate without falling upon a tautology and then calling everyone else stupid. Libertarianism is very simple, it's true. Statists have to twist logic into a pretzel to "prove" that their particular moral views should be forced upon everyone else by police powers and that justifies those police powers.

 

If someone doesn't feel that the result of inaction is worth the cost of taking action, then that's their decision and they should be free to make it. Just because you see something as a threat doesn't mean that they do. Or, they feel that there's something else that is sufficient threat upon which they place a higher priority.

You feel that your wants and morals are superior, thus you justify the use of force against your neighbors and strangers to get what you want and force your morals upon them. You can't explain why government is legitimate, only that it is so long as it generally reflects your wants and morals.

 

All those other people are taking what they want by using the police powers, so you ought to be able to do so yourself! No need to think. Just obey, be a good sheep, and pull the lever for whatever candidate you feel promises you the most stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you married the consequences of statism, which has killed hundreds of milliions of people in just the last century alone, or are you like all the other statists who claim that's caused by some other version of statism, but not your particular brand of it? I suspect the latter. Statists never accept the consequences of their beliefs, even when they vote for the people who run the murderous machine of the state.

 

I actually had in mind something like an invading army, not just a missile. Say we have a city... people pay to fund a military, which protects the city. Everyone living in the city benefits from protecting. Now the question is, what if someone in the city stops paying... How do you exclude him from being protected? Maybe, if his house stands by itself on the edge of the city, the defensive lines can be withdrawn to exclude his house. But what if his house is in the middle of the city? There'd be no way to exclude his house from protection. And you can't force him to leave either. I don't see how premiums would solve this.

ignore the morals for a sec. Do you agree that libertarians would, for the reasons I gave, be unable to field as good an army as some statist group could?

 

Well, that's one possible story, but not the only possible story. You are overlooking that there are other ways to incentivize than through using the threat of aggression.

Example:

Mr. Smith goes to the store to buy his groceries. The manager stops him.

"Mr Smith, you haven't yet contributed your fair share to our defense agencies. You know very well that we have statist enemies all around us, and that we all need to contribute to make sure our military maintains its overwhelming superiority. If you refuse to contribute to our mutual defense, I'm afraid I refuse to sell you groceries."

Mr. Smith receives the same treatment every time he tries to engage in trade for anything. Mr. Smith will get the point very quickly.

 

yes, very good that you brought up this argument. You see, you haven't solved the problem, you've just moved it. Lets say all vendors decide to embargo mr Smith. Obviously, this comes at a cost for individual vendors, since they lose a customer. As before, we are still in a classic prisoners' dilemma situation. Look at the incentives: individually, each vendor would be best off if everyone else embargoed mr smith, while they themselves ignored the embargo and sold to him. again, we see that libertarians have a very hard time effectively coordinating their efforts. such an embargo would be hard to maintain, since everyone has an incentive to defect. and again, this only becomes harder and harder the more people there are involved.

I suppose that libertarians could overcome the free rider problem and properly fund a military, but ONLY in very, very small groups. But those groups would be so small that their military power would be easily defeated by anyone.

 

So you're talking about a libertarian society where the people want to live by the NAP. Also a society that knows that it's military must retain superiority over that of its violent, statist neighbors. It's very existence depends upon everyone contributing to the military.

So everyone in the society has an incentive to ensure that nobody free rides. A business that doesn't uphold the social standard of boycotting free riders would be detected, and with modern communication systems the entire society could be notified instantaneously. The incentive to cheat would be far outweighed by the disastrous results of being discovered to be a greedy, unpatriotic leech.

Your story that such a social standard could only apply in a very, very small group is merely your opinion. I don't share it.

So we differ on our opinions of whether a libertarian society could maintain a defensive force adequate to defend itself. But the larger question is, what does that issue have to do with the myriad other violations of the NAP that are perpetrated by the state? Am I supposed to ignore them simply because (in your opinion) a libertarian society could not maintain an adequate military force? Especially when you don't even know for sure that it can't?

 

I'm talking of a society which would consist of humans, not super rational or morally superior libertarians. Just ordinary humans. Sure libertarian society might work with super humans, but we don't have super humans to work with. Libertarian society can't work with normal humans, that's what I'm saying.

So.. No, I'm not talking about a society in which everyone is a NAP fanatic. There will ALWAYS be people who don't agree with NAP. I'm just speaking of a -society- based on the NAP. Such a society would collapse because everyone has an incentive to screw eachother over.

What you are saying is essentially that libertarianism is good because it can work if we have super humans. christ sake, just look around the world today.. Does it look like humans are anywhere near as moral and rational as they'd need to be for libertarianism to work? No. It won't work. And yes, that is a good reason to stop being libertarian. An ideology which can't produce good results with normal humans is a bad ideology. Your utopian society is one which is unable to protect itself, and which will inevitably be replaced by another system.

 

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I was speaking of a society comprised of anything other than normal humans. You mentioned a libertarian society, so I assumed you were talking about a society comprised of libertarians, people who hold and advocate for the NAP.

I don't happen to believe your story that a libertarian society can't maintain a military sufficient to defend itself.

Regardless, that issue has nothing to do with the myriad other initiations of aggression done by the state right now. You're story isn't going to make me think that all of those are just fine.

 

Yes we should do what works. WE should not do what does not work. Its quite simple

 

I think insurance companies would form the armies and pay them through premiums. You will have free riders but you would have about as many free riders as you would in other insurance markets.

Your free rider, a person that does not by war insurance, would just be living a riskier life...I think empirically they would be the exception to the rule. We see empirically that as people move up the income scale, they buy greater amounts of insurance. I would expect hardly anyone below age 30 or without a family to have it and sharp increase there after as people accumulate assets and want to protect them.

Just a thought.

 

No, I meant a society based on libertarian principles, not a society in which everyone is a devout libertarian. The latter kind of society couldn't exist anyways so its pointless to speak about it.

it's not a matter of belief.. You shouldn't have to take my word for this.. logic should compel you. Look up nash equilibrium, prisoners dilemma, public goods etc. I've already made the arguments.. the NAP cannot solve prisoners dilemma situations, making large scale cooperation impossible.

Oh, you think Im 100% fine with current kinds of government? I'm not. You miss the point. There is no perfect government. you just have to pick the lesser evil. The sooner you understand that libertarianism isn't a viable alternative, the sooner you can just accept that current kinds of government is the preferrable lesser evil.

 

how would they live riskier? If they live in a big city where everyone else pays the premium except them, they are still protected. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. you CAN'T exclude people from the military protection. THAT is the problem. being a free rider is the rational choice for each individual. Why pay for your protection if you can just everyone else pay for it?

 

But it IS a matter of belief. You believe that it is impossible that libertarian society could defend itself. You don't know this. You believe it. And that's fine. I believe otherwise.

 

if libertarianism is your religion fine.. but don't pretend you have logic on your side.

 

If statism is your religion fine...but don't pretend you have logic on your side.

 

Also, if you wanted homeowners, auto, boat, life, or business insurance, you're not going to get away with skipping on your defense insurance. Not many potential free riders would be willing to forgo all insurance altogether.

 

I doubt it. It's difficult in a free society to force people to become cannon fodder or to pay for tools of mass destruction to be used on people who live far away and are not a threat.

- - - Updated - - -

For you as an authoritarian moralist, the end justifies the means so long as it the end that you want. And, of course, at the expense of strangers.