Why Aren't you a Libertarian?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Libertarians in this thread: do you agree that the libertarian position (on property rights and other issues) would not only allow the creation of company towns, but would be opposed to limiting the freedom of the company/landowner to administer them as they see fit?

For those of you who aren't familiar with the term: I'm talking about a place where a company buys up all the land (typically next to the company's mine or other remote resource), builds housing that it rents to its workers, operates shops where the workers and their families can buy goods and services, and either owns or donates the land for local schools and other institutions.

Typically, workers are evicted if they lose their jobs, and the stores in town run an effective monopoly because of the distance to any competition. Often, workers are required by their employment contract to live in the company town.

The town has no elected town council; since the company owns the whole town, it administers the town as it sees fit, taking or leaving resident input as it chooses.

For some examples of real-world company towns: Company town - Wikipedia

By my reading of the platforms of various libertarian organizations, it seems to me that the standard libertarian position would be "yes, the company should be free to do this, and any residents who don't like this arrangement should just find somewhere else to live and work." Do you folks agree?

Bonus question: if you lived in a company town like this, would you feel free?

*crickets*

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, OK... to your corners.
Maybe start over on a new tack.

Limericks at 10 paces?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd add that around here, no one works at min wage.
They earn much more because of competition.

Competition that takes into account the minimum wage and its effect on elasticities.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

One might think your motives aren't as you say either.
But I'd never say such a thing.

You'd never, unless it was in a completely passive-aggressive way. What I am is what you get. I'm not shy about saying what I think and feel. And I don't play games, at least, not these kinds. You're always welcome to come over and play our new Pandemic Legacy or join our D&D game.

OK, OK... to your corners.
Maybe start over on a new tack.

Limericks at 10 paces?

Rap battle?

 

[Revoltingest]

You'd never, unless it was in a completely passive-aggressive way.

Believe what you need.

 

[Watchmen]

Just off the cuff, I disagree with the following:

The libertarian’s view of “crime without victims.” For example, libertarians want to decriminalize prostitution. While I have no problem with truly consenting individuals, the reality is sex trafficking is rampant, including in areas where prostitution is legal.

Eminent domain is sometimes necessary. Libertarians are against it.

Libertarians oppose licensing. I think licensing and regulation are sometimes required for public safety.

These are just a few.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarians oppose licensing. I think licensing and regulation are sometimes required for public safety.

Let's examine the actual language regarding licensing....

Libertarians support the right of every person to earn an honest and peaceful living through the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Accordingly, we oppose occupational and other licensing laws that infringe on this right or treat it as a state-granted privilege. We encourage certifications by voluntary associations of professionals.

The underlined portion would be needlessly elaborate if we simply opposed all licensing.
Frankly, I find the language ambiguous.
Here's my take using 2 examples......
1) To license doctors is useful because the potential for damage to a person is enormous, far exceeding a doctor's financial ability to compensate victims of wrongs. Current licensing requirements are no more stringent than necessary for a doctor to be competent. Moreover, meeting the requirements is all that's needed to become licensed, which doesn't sound like a "privilege"...something easily revoked.
2) LA once required 2000 hours of cosmetology class time for hair braiders. (As I recall, The Institute For Justice fought this, & won.) This is an infringement, ie, an unreasonable restraint of trade because the risk to the customer is low, & the barrier to entering the profession is high.

 

[Watchmen]

Let's examine the actual language regarding licensing....

The underlined portion would be needlessly elaborate if we simply opposed all licensing.
Frankly, I find the language ambiguous.
Here's my take using 2 examples......
1) To license doctors is useful because the potential for damage to a person is enormous, far exceeding a doctor's financial ability to compensate victims of wrongs. Current licensing requirements are no more stringent than necessary for a doctor to be competent. Moreover, meeting the requirements is all that's needed to become licensed, which doesn't sound like a "privilege"...something easily revoked.
2) LA once required 2000 hours of cosmetology class time for hair braiders. (As I recall, The Institute For Justice fought this, & won.) This is an infringement, ie, an unreasonable restraint of trade because the risk to the customer is low, & the barrier to entering the profession is high.

The language doesn’t seem to make the distinction between doctors and hair braiders.

 

[Revoltingest]

The language doesn’t seem to make the distinction between doctors and hair braiders.

That's to be expected in a broad statement of political philosophy.
My inference matches actual libertarian advocacy history.
Also, the Libertarian Party seeks a position at the table.
To abandon licensing would be political suicide...more so than
it's already unease-inducing platform. So we should expect
political practicality, albeit at the fringes.
Institute For Justice cases are enlightening.
Ref....
https://ij.org/
The point is to avoid reading an overly anarchistic intent.

 

[sayak83]

Ok, I guess that means you are fine with others deciding for you what right you have and what goods you can possess. So if the group decides it is in their benefit that you go to war, kill folks you don't know, risk your own life, livelihood for the benefit of the government it's all part of the deal.

Yes. I have no problem with a country's right to draft citizen's to millitary during the times of war, if the country is a democracy and has a ratified constitution. If I believe that I wish to have some rights that are being denied, I am allowed to voice that opinion, build support and get it accepted through proper voting. But if the society rejects my demands, then I am dutybound to accept that decision as well.
I also have no problem with taxation, seizing of property due to national emergency etc. as long as it is done within a democratic and lawful system of consultation.

None of this applies if the nation is run by dictators, because their personal desires are being imposed on society, and the society has no say in them.

 

[Jollybear]

That seems a bit conflicted, since often protecting liberty involves minor restrictions on liberty: preventing people from restricting the liberty of others.

No one is free to harm others. Everyone is free to do whatever they want as long as it harms no one else.

How does this translate into a position on, say, government-funded universal health care? To me, this is a pretty straightforward matter protection from harm. It's also something that most libertarians I hear from oppose... though I know you say you aren't necessarily like other libertarians.

Why does it have to be universal? Why cant it be where you pay WHEN you need it? Just like you pay for groceries when you need it.

 

[Valjean]

Yes. I have no problem with a country's right to draft citizen's to millitary during the times of war, if the country is a democracy and has a ratified constitution. If I believe that I wish to have some rights that are being denied, I am allowed to voice that opinion, build support and get it accepted through proper voting. But if the society rejects my demands, then I am dutybound to accept that decision as well.
I also have no problem with taxation, seizing of property due to national emergency etc. as long as it is done within a democratic and lawful system of consultation.

None of this applies if the nation is run by dictators, because their personal desires are being imposed on society, and the society has no say in them.

I fail to see how the government of the region I chanced to be born in has any claim to either service or loyalty. Do I have any right to draft my neighbors to weed my garden or slash the tires of someone who annoyed me? How about my homeowner's association? Would a city council have the authority to draft men to attack a neighboring city? Why shouldn't a leader of the Crips be able to declare war on the Bloods? If my country declares war on X, and I'm sympathetic with X, why would it not be perfectly proper for me to fight for X?
Nobody owns me.

At what point does a group gain legitimate existential authority over an individual? In this respect, how is a "government" any different from a street gang?

I maintain all men have freedom of conscience and a right to liberty. As long as I'm not misusing these, no-one has a right do deny me them.

Law? I have no particular respect for law. Laws are artificial, inconsistent, constantly changing and different in different jurisdictions.
Conscience trumps law. Right and wrong are much more consistent and durable than law.

 

[Curious George]

AS I said each argument for or against a regulation should be done on its individual merits. I don't know enough about the specific regulations involved to make a argument either way.

If all parties are for ridding the books of detrimental regulations, then libertarians are no different in this case.

But they are. What libertarians see as detrimental is interference with the market. It is not that they just want to remove detrimental regulations it os that they believe most regulations are detrimental.

I disagree. I don't believe we have a lot of control over our Government. The government becomes its own monopoly. It has advertising agencies, it has lobbyists, it holds the purse strings for a lot of controlling interests. The government has been is the business of manipulating public opinion for many years. It gerrymandered political boundaries in many states so the powerful remain powerful.

Not to mention the government is made up of "individuals" That most people don't really know, have no real reason to trust anymore than anybody else and occasionally get to vote for based on a few sound bites. Generally enough money can buy elections. Most people aren't dealing with an individual politician to represent them, they are dealing with a PR firm.

 

[Valjean]

No one is free to harm others. Everyone is free to do whatever they want as long as it harms no one else.



Why does it have to be universal? Why cant it be where you pay WHEN you need it? Just like you pay for groceries when you need it.

Because America's pay-as-you-go system has not yielded good outcomes or equal access to healthcare.

 

[Jollybear]

Because America's pay-as-you-go system has not yielded good outcomes or equal access to healthcare.

Then they need to get rid of health insurence companies. Doctors know they will pay alot.

 

[Valjean]

Then they need to get rid of health insurence companies. Doctors know they will pay alot.

No argument here.

OK, maybe a little clarification. It's not the doctors who are driving the extortionate costs. Doctors, at least hospital doctors, rarely know whether a patient is rich or poor; insured or uninsured. They don't know, perhaps unfortunately, how much the various services offered by the hospital actually cost.

 

[Revoltingest]

No argument here.

Doctors typically charge uninsured consumers more.
This is because insurance companies negotiate rates
in advance. But it's still a messed up system.

 

[Valjean]

Doctors typically charge uninsured consumers more.
This is because insurance companies negotiate rates
in advance. But it's still a messed up system.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Doctors typically charge uninsured consumers more.
This is because insurance companies negotiate rates
in advance. But it's still a messed up system.

In most states it's illegal to charge cash patients a different rate than what you would charge the insurance. They can charge no more than the highest 'negotiated' rate they have set with insurers even to uninsured patients (otherwise insurers will call it insurance fraud). They can still run more tests or services than the insurance is willing to cover, but then the patient is responsible for paying what the insurance declines. (and you're always allowed to say no to additional testing and services). In my state you can charge 20% less to cash patients because insurance claims processing and documentation is more involved and comes with more time and labor expenses. So a pure cash patient could conceivably pay less than if the insurance negates the service and passes the responsibility to the patient. But that rarely happens because we have a patient advocacy program which triple checks with the insurance to make sure the prescriptive service will be covered prior.

 

[Valjean]

In most states it's illegal to charge cash patients a different rate than what you would charge the insurance. They can charge no more than the highest 'negotiated' rate they have set with insurers even to uninsured patients (otherwise insurers will call it insurance fraud). They can still run more tests or services than the insurance is willing to cover, but then the patient is responsible for paying what the insurance declines. (and you're always allowed to say no to additional testing and services). In my state you can charge 20% less to cash patients because insurance claims processing and documentation is more involved and comes with more time and labor expenses. So a pure cash patient could conceivably pay less than if the insurance negates the service and passes the responsibility to the patient. But that rarely happens because we have a patient advocacy program which triple checks with the insurance to make sure the prescriptive service will be covered prior.

Or they could just fly to Belgium or India and get the needed care for a quarter the price.