[ExI] Call To Libertarians

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Tue Feb 22 19:20:37 UTC 2011

On 02/19/2011 02:08 PM, spike wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Richard
> Loosemore
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Call To Libertarians
> spike wrote:
>>> ... On Behalf Of Richard Loosemore
>> The inclusion of "theaters" was strictly optional:  not essential to my
> argument.  A throwaway...
> Ja, that one caught my attention.  If any government builds a theatre, that
> government dictates what is played there.
>> Would it be more accurate, then, to say that Libertarianism is about
> SUPPORTING the  government funding of:

No.  This is the very epitome of definition by non-essentials.  We can 
do better than this.

A minarchist generally believes that the only valid functions for 
government are formulating and enforcing laws and the military.   Things 
that they thing cannot be done privately.  It is a very short list.

But for what it is worth from this libertarian:

> Keep in mind that I differentiate between libertarianism and Libertarianism.
> One has a capital L.  I use lower case.
>>    Roads,	yes

No.  Private road building worked fine and most private toll roads, 
unlike public ones were paid off ages ago.

>>     Bridges,	yes

No.  Most bridges were not built by government.

>>     Police,	yes

Perhaps but only with very constrained laws that follow the NAP.  Not 
enforcement of whatever any politician things up regardless of whether 
it is consistent with individual rights.

Arguably you do not need this to be a government function at all or to 
have any such specialized body.  Read Rothbard for details.

>>     Firefighters,	 yes

No. Private firefighters work fine.

>>     Prisons,	yes, but perhaps not the luxury outfits we see so commonly
> today.

No.  There is also an interesting argument (Rothbard and others) that 
prisons are actually unnecessary for the putative purpose they are 
claimed to be justified by.

>>     Schools,	yes

No way.  Government should not be involved in education whatsoever.

>>     Public transport in places where universal use of cars would  bring
> cities to a standstill		yes, if the public transport is
> self-sustaining without (or perhaps minimal) government subsidy

No.  If the excuse is accurate the need can be fulfilled privately much 

>>     The armed forces,	yes

Not necessarily but commonly argued by minarchist.   But no wars 
declared by government with forced participation.  Individuals decide 
whether the war is worth fighting or not.

>>     Universities, and publicly funded scholarships for poor students,	

No.  You are free to contribute to the education funds of any individual 
students or to a pool administered by private persons to distribute 
funding to those in need of it for education.  Government involvement is 
not remotely required.

> Yes if by "poor students" you meant students with little money, as opposed
> to bad students.  High SATers, yes.
>   >    National research laboratories like the Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention  yes

No.  There is no need for government to do this job.

>>     Snow plows,	yes, operated by non-union drivers


>>     Public libraries,	yes

No.  Private persons and groups can and do create libraries open to the 

>   >    Emergency and disaster assistance;	yes,

No.  Private groups and individuals can do this.

>>    Legal protection for those too poor to fight against the exploitative
> power of corporations;	no, let them take their trade elsewhere.

Non starter BS.  All have the same rights under rational individual 
rights NAP based law.

>   >    Government agencies to scrutinize corrupt practices by  corporations
> and wealthy individuals,	This might be OK if we balance it by having
> corporations which would scrutinize corrupt practices by government and poor
> individuals

Nope.  Either people or businesses broke rational laws or they did not.  
No classist BS.

>>     Basic healthcare for old people who worked all their lives
>         for corporations who paid them so little in salary that
>         they could not save for retirement without starving to
>         death before they reached retirement...  	yes

Highly biased BS.  No one has a valid claim on the resources of anyone 
else irrespective of the wishes of the those others.  Ever.

>>     And sundry other programs that keep the very poor just above
>         the subsistence level, so we do not have to step over their
>         dead bodies on the street all the time, and so they do not
>         wander around in feral packs, looking for middle-class people
>         that they can kill and eat...

Utter BS.  Poverty is created quite well by the Welfare State.   We are 
all impoverished compared to what we could have had by the huge bloated 
state and its manifold takings from us by force.

- samantha

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list