On a side note about classic liberals, I know that a lot of classic liberals follow the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. However, I clearly remember reading that Jefferson was suspicious of the rising power of big corporations. So would classic liberalism really fit into laissez-faire per se?
Jefferson at the time probably was in favour of liberal policies because there was no such thing as MNCs and not many big companies hoarding the market. Back then society was very different and the industrial revolution didn’t even happen yet. Much of the United States was rural and I would assume that most people were self-employed and working on their own farms (aside from the slaves).
Perhaps maybe it is more accurate to say that libertarians follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand moreso than Jefferson?
I think that a libertarian system has to be built from scratch. It’s not possible to make the changes necesary quick enough for them to have an effect. Like ‘utopian’ systems, the changes must be undertaken over several centuries, without wavering from the central goal.
If you try and strip the poor of their welfare, then they will be very angry, just as Democracy shows.
Yes if you play a fully Socialist game I’d imagine you’d be screwed as well. I was playing a Social Democratic game (was by no means fully socialist but still) and I had to lay off the organic farming subsidies and such so that the Capitalist-funded terrorists wouldn’t threaten to kill me Fidel Castro is a real-life example of a guy who has had many assassination attempts on him by similar-minded terrorists. The difference is he severely restricted the civil liberties of his own people just to make sure that he never gets assassinated.
Recently I was doing a playthrough where I somehow managed to piss off the religious in a continuous chain (never happened to me before) and they suicide bombed and killed a few of my party members and injured many more (including myself). Was Game over after that. I didn’t even implement any anti-religious policies but I chose situations that the religious didn’t like (ie. Allow Blasphemy to be published, Let the hunger strike go on, Allow same-sex marriage, etc.)
The assassination thing is a bit over the top if I’m honest, after all Bush and Blair are still around…
I think we should make it that the UK and USA playthroughs should never have assassination attempts just because we’re all too lazy to even do the darn thing
ehasl, just curious. How would roads on the street be maintained in free enterprise?
Also, considering how private roads are the property of a private company, they call the shots with regards to speed limits, traffic signs/lights, who can use the roads, and what not right? Because it could be argued from a classic liberal perspective that if the private companies werent allowed to call the shots (so as long as they dont infringe on the property rights of others… ie. physical coercion), their private property rights would be infringed upon right?
Also, how would they make money for the upkeep of these roads? Would people pay some sort of “rate” to a private company so that they can get out of their drive way and then drive down the road on their street (which would be privately owned right?) and then drive out to the major roads (which would definately be private right?)
Also, what about side walks? I guess people will have to pay a “rate” to a private company in order to have the right to walk on them as well? And what about if there are no sidewalks and just a road? (like on my street) That means I would have to pay a rate to the private company that owns the road so that I can walk on it to leave my street? I’m not shooting down your idea, just curious as to how this would all work.
I’ve seen some libertarians argue for private roads but I never saw how they thought about implementing them.
Also considering that people have to use certain roads no matter what and it is owned by one company, doesn’t that constitute a monopoly? I have to cross my road (or if I had one, a sidewalk) no matter what if I want to leave my street. But this would effectively be a monopoly and the company can charge whatever they want because they would be the only ones owning that road/sidewalk that people have to use. A company can just say “you have to pay me $1000 a month to use that road because we own it!”, then what choice would I have? I wouldn’t be able to leave my driveway! And theres no way the price can be lowered since its a monopoly. What if I was a minority and the owner of the road said “no racial minorities”? It’s their private property so they call the shots. However I wouldn’t have alternative competition to choose from and go to a company that would allow me to use the road right? The road that I need to go through is owned by one company.
These are just some of the things that have to be ironed out when it comes to private roads. There are certain divisions such as military, police and roads that should at least be public perhaps. For one, the state has to enforce law and protect the country from invasion so police and military can’t be private. What if some foreigner buys out the police and military and then uses it against the citizenry to stage a coup d’etat?!
In my opinion,private roads are a fully plausible institution. In Lockean interpretation of private property rights (commonly thought to be purely individualist and accepted by most libertarians) there exist such thing as a “social constraint”,deriving from the fact that the natural,primary component(pure,unmodified by human activity) of any commodity belongs to the whole community.Thus,anyone has a right to walk through the road or use it in an emergency. So,an explicit law or regulation ,backed by community support and implicit acceptance of its underlying philosophy,should suffice to prevent abuse of monopoly power. Law could say that certain practices with regard to raoadd pricing are illegal,or better still,implement direct democracy instutions engaging communities living near appropriate roads to intervene in such cases.
Also,many roads can be “bundled” with gated communities,making all the problems with externalities concerning private roads to be internalized and sold as a whole product on the market. At least some of the roads can be owned and operated by communities ,but not by the state,some can by financed by the "privileged minorities"without explicit property rights (For example,it will be in mall`s owner interest to invest in a road near his building,if only such an investition is seen as profitable in the long run and possible).
I think such a mixed system (but not in a sense of state-private economy,but rather private-communitarian economy) would make all the purely private elements of it more competitive. True,one road can be a monopoly in short distance travel,but longer distance travellers can choose between many possible combined routes to many destinations. Quasi-public intermediate roads and community surveillance should make collusion between owners less likely,especially if they have unequal perspectives about future business expansion possibilities (thus,privatisation implementers should distrubute roads among as many diverse economic agents as possible).Long term contracts are also vital to the scheme,since thay may help to stabilize economically efficient non-collusive equilibrium in the initial phase of negotiation between road owners and their clients.
The whole purpose of schmes like road privatisation is to use market or market-analog mechanisms to our benefit,not to sell us all to greedy capitalists. As always in any reform,community support and responsible policy is essential.
Just thought of something. Anyone know how they footed the bill for roads in the United States prior to 1913 (Income Taxes and Federal Reserve)? As far as I know, they didn’t have taxes then. Or they may have had some consumption taxes at the most. How did they maintain roads then? Obviously transportation then was more primitive than now but they still had to use roads right? Anyone know how they covered costs then?
You mention that roads belongs to the whole community or should be allowed in emergency. Fair enough. However does Locke’s principle apply if some poor man is bleeding and then he walks into a hospital and they say “no payment, no service”? A doctor and his team can’t just work for free, especially when it costs money to perform on a patient right?
Also wouldnt community regulation of private enterprise be anti-free market? Preventing a corrupt company to just buy up roads from someone (who wants to sell) would be intervention of the market. This is what I still don’t get about libertarianism. So I would assume that in order for Libertarianism to be pratical it would have to have some minimal amount of restriction rather than being a true free-market. And then theres the possibility of a private military or police force. This could easily be abused when a foreign businessman could attempt to overthrow a country by threatening the citizenry with a nuclear weapon (since they own the military). Of course physical coercion is against libertarian principles but tell that to a kook with a nuclear warhead/military arsenal. A true free-market would likely lead to chaos no?
Well,provision of 100 percent public goods,like national defense is a serious weakness of libertarianism,thats why many thinkers agree that a completely free society can work only under some circumstances (like lack of major military enemies),or maybe its an ideal worth pursuing,but one that may never be fully implemented. I dont think however that a voluntarily citizen-funded military could be so easily subverted,after all at least part of the soldiers and their civil leaders have some moral codes. I think military can be voluntarily funded,though it cant be commercial in the classic sense. Historically,many mercenary units or other were financed at least partly by the citizenry in times of war.
As for the health provision - you can argue that health nsurance,mutual aid and charity could provide at least minimum “social safety net”,although it depends on the situation in particular country,of course. Some alternative currency schemes (like LETS or Ripple program)could help to eliminate extreme cases of poverty.
Many libertarians would also argue that qualified personnel in rich and prosperous private hospital can be more willing to provide some of their time for free or simply to hone their skills- after all it is usually the most productive people in society wchich are motivated internally,without the need of external reward. There are even cases where pecuniary reward can hamper productivity. Also,you cannot forget about private sponsorship of hospitals for advertisement opportunities,to invest in the community etc.
I cannot know whether all this combined could provide sufficient aid to the poor,of course,but the overall perspective is not so hopeless.
I dont think that community "intervention" in the market can truly distort it ,since community and the market ,at least historically,are one and inseparable. Pure "free market" is an artificial phenomenon,since it would make interpersonal interactions unfree,it would negate human social nature. Many radical right-libertarians dont agree…
Would you happen to know how the United States funded for roads before 1913 (when Federal Reserve and Income tax was introduced) without the income tax? How did that work? What worked before maybe can work now. They had no income tax back then.
I assume then that roads were made either by the States (which had much more independance than now) orby people wanting to connect their individual communites to others.
It seems that toll roads started in the US around 1790, and perhaps US federal funding of roads in the 1890s, through the Dept. of Agriculture. Before that though, I’m not sure.
This was later repealed as unconstitutional. They got rid of it but then Income Tax came back in 1913.
Yeah this was a grey area I wasn’t sure about. The United States started out with no income tax. In 1861, they implemented a small income tax but then it was later ruled out as unconstitutional. So from Independence up until 1913 (with the 16th Amendment I think), the US had no income tax for a majority of the time.
Wow, that’s really mucky. 1861, 1862, 1864 all had changes to the income tax system. Then it was deemed unconstitutional. 1894 they reintroduce it, and a bit later it gets deemed unconstitutional. Then in 1913 they change the Constitution.
I guess there must have been other ways of generating income, like border tariffs.
Did you get the thing where you take away poor people’s safety nets, leaving them angry, and then give them unrestricted access to weapons, drugs, and alcohol?
It is ,however, possible to create in Democracy a nearly-perfect society with no limits on alcohol,weapons,legalised lsd etc. if you balance this with enough social policies (maximized health care is a must).the only thing you cannot do is to avoid drug addiction situation with all drugs legalised. I think there should be some way to cancel this out.
Unfortunately,however, the income and other taxes have to be quite high to finance all this,so the society is rather more libertine than libertarian.Still,i usually cancel corporation and sales taxes,and maternity leave, when starting any game. These policies are totally negative in their effects - if you need to make parents happy better give them childcare provision.
The UK taxed windows a few hundred years ago. there are laods of stately homes with fake windows without glass in to save paying the tax.
but feathers? whats the deal with taxing feathers???
The owner of a roads gets to set speed limits and signs etc., but it will be in the owners interest to use the best and most widespread system, and there will most likely be one or a few private certification firms. In new cars with GPS etc. on-screen both the selection of routes and the payment for using roads will be done automatically. I see that there may be problems with this system if an owner wants to sabotage it, and I am no pure libertarian either. Also I really think that the freedom is greater if you can leave your own garden and visit your neighbour without being charged ten thousand dollars.
Objectivism, one of the more realistic libertarian movements, wants the state to have monopoly on military weapons and uniforms (with exceptions for the private manufacturers of these products) and on police that has right to use mild force to keep order, and on courts. A minarchy, but not an anarchy.
Fidel Castro is a real-life example of a guy who has had many assassination attempts on him by similar-minded terrorists. The difference is he severely restricted the civil liberties of his own people just to make sure that he never gets assassinated.
I didn’t even implement any anti-religious policies but I chose situations that the religious didn’t like (ie. Allow Blasphemy to be published, Let the hunger strike go on, Allow same-sex marriage, etc.)
I would like to see all of these in Democracy. Especially on playing cards, feathers, and yachts. Possibly as one single policy.