As I said, collectivism is a central tenet of Libertarian thought, something you would know if you knew anything about Libertarianism.
Right, let's nip this in the bud. You are a free market libertarian. I am a socialist libertarian. We don't need to fight over who gets to use the word, because it has nothing inherently to do with the concept of private property or socialism.
Libertarian:
Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize or even abolish the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist. The word
libertarian is an antonym of
authoritarian.
Can we at least agree to defer to the actual definition of the word? I am not talking about the right wing American libertarian movement. That particular group of people using the word to define themselves does not change the definition of the word.
The difference is the "freely entered into" part. So while a "strict" Libertarian would argue against public fire departments as being an affront on free-market capitalism, "moderate" Libertarians (the vast majority) do not see this as an important example of coercive taxation because of the general lack of objection on the part of the taxpayers. And because public fire departments is a feature of local government, another important Libertarian principle that you would know if you knew anything about Libertarianism. Local governments are more accountable to the populations they serve - furthering the principle of consent - and also allow for differing models of delivering services to exist elsewhere in the nation - furthering the principle of competing ideas.
Yes, I agree that local governments are more accountable, efficient and effective, and I also prefer them over provincial and federal bodies. That's what makes me a libertarian.
However, not all libertarians are concerned about "an affront to free market capitalism." Many of us are concerned about social justice, civil rights, personal liberty and collectively working to ensure that nobody in our communities needs to suffer un-necessarily due to extreme poverty and don't give a fiddler's fart about free market capitalism as long as the local free market capitalists we know and love aren't being driven out of town by faceless, brutal, unethical multinational free market capitalists.
I clicked on the link expecting find tales of incompetence and immoral behavior as you have spoke of and I did - except it was on the part of the
public fire department.
link
Hm - well, municipalities contracting out universal fire protection to private companies wasn't the model I had in mind, since it's still the municipality providing fire service, but with an additional budget to pad the profit margin of the service provider. I was thinking of the early models, much like what you suggested, where only people who paid for fire protection were covered, and got little plaques over their doors to say so, and the firefighters routinely fought a fire at one residence while allowing the one next door to burn to the ground. More like
this, but without any alternative.
Nevertheless, to sum up your article: Rye Brook had a contract with a neighbouring community's municipal fire service, then decided to
pull out of this contract to bring in a private for-profit company. The municipality that previously provided the fire service stopped responding to calls (obviously, as they were no longer being paid to provide service to Rye Brook), and
the private company was unable to supply adequate staff, resulting in a house burning to the ground, a lawsuit and the cancellation of the contract. So, where, in this picture, do you see the incompetence on the part of the public sector? I'm not getting where you're coming from.
Alceste, you call yourself a Libertarian yet you openly advocate the wholesale removal of the price mechanism in compensation rates.
I believe communities have every right to set and enforce standards of compensation, workplace safety, non-discrimination, freedom from harassment and any other standard they collectively agree will be of greatest benefit to the most people (including business owners) without disproportionate concern for private profits. Business owners who are part of the community, so of course they also contribute to the process. You "call yourself a libertarian", yet you prioritize private profits above any other concern, including liberty.
Now, to the uninitiated this probably reads as "every man is an island" or "every man for himself" or even "get what you can". It doesn't. The sense of community, social justice, and charity you experience is not a feature of your government.
Have you ever actually worked for a local government? I'm thinking no. I appreciate your thoughts, but I also think local government's are not "inherently wasteful". I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but where we differ is that you believe civil servants are lazy, apathetic, wasteful ne'er-do-wells who don't give a fig for efficiency or effectiveness, whereas private business owners are innovative, cost-effective, energetic, hyper-efficient go-getters tirelessly striving to get the best quality for the lowest price. I don't subscribe to that kind of bigotry. People are just people, doing the best they can, wherever they work, and
everybody wants to cut costs and get the best quality for the lowest price. There is a long list of things governments do better (higher quality, lower price) than the private sector, including the universal provision of necessities like water, sewers, public transport, health care, fire protection and law enforcement. Time and time again, elected officials, trying to appeal to people like yourself, privatise a previously public service - trains in England being one example, hydro in Ontario being another - and consumers soon find themselves paying twice as much for an inferior service, with endless bailouts from the government to keep the businesses afloat to avoid a collapse in necessary services.
Is it any wonder that the motivation to act on any level has been eroded in this country? That we can unabashedly wonder whether work has any value?
Whether
hard work (as opposed to just work) is, in and of itself,
virtuous, is the question: whether it is more virtuous to work very hard for personal gain than it is to work as needed to cover basic necessities and spend the rest of the time enjoying the one life we get to have.
If Microsoft engages in anti-competitive practices they should be brought to task. Perhaps you never heard that the dude is spending his energies and his fortune helping others in ways that he sees fit. And that Warren Buffet liked his charitable operation and gave him his fortune as well. Damn capitalist Bast**ds.
Jackytar
Yes, Warren Buffet made his piles and piles of dough - at least in part - by getting involved in the privatisation of British trains. So, while every commuter in England pays twice as much as the rest of Europe to get to work and back, Mr. Buffet spreads their hard-earned money around and takes all the credit. What a great guy!
Same goes for Bill, ruthlessly stamping out countless competitors to gain a monopoly so that he could compel the whole world to use his shoddy product at the price of his choosing. Pardon me if I don't clap and cheer. Don't get me wrong, it's great that they toss a few scraps back to the peasants out the castle gate. Better than if they didn't. But I prefer regular, reliable, sustained, informed, evidence-based programs to support the unfortunate.
