I support the libertarian principles of limited government, local government, and the private sector but should government provide or not provide the following:
If the govt. shouldn’t provide one or more of the above, then why should the private sector provide it?
You have this question backwards.
Libertarianism is a philosophy based around the non-aggression principle, which is a wholly market conception of social order.
A state is not necessary for a libertarian, and many might argue that a libertarian cannot support a state at all.
If you have time, give this a read
What Libertarianism Is
Also, government cannot provide anything. Government has no resources, except those that it commandeers from the private sector. For everything the government “gives” it has necessarily taken something else.
This is best illustrated by Frederic Bastiat’s “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen”.
Also, welcome to Mises.org. [:)]
I support libertarian principles of limited government, local government, and the private sector but I want the government to prevent anyone but itself from providing the following:
I also want the government to provide these services in any form it deems fit and to set whichever price it deems appropriate for these services, to imprison anyone who refuses to pay the amount set and to kill anyone who then resists imprisonment.
Why should anyone provide anything?
A ‘government’ can provide whatever they want, but if they want my money they should get my permission. They also shouldn’t prevent others from competing. Because if they do, that would be a shakedown / a scam.
And some things should never be ‘provided’, such as wars of aggression, imprisonment of peaceful persons (war on drugs), and so on.
Walter Block to the rescue.
I guess Rothbard will have to do. Can’t find anything else off hand.
Walter block again…
Why on Earth would you want that?
Three things that do not apply to government:
Risk
Competition
Economic Calculation
In fact, when a state enterprise utterly fails it receives more exproriated funding from daddy.
As for roads, 780 million (around that) has been blown on a highway renewal project in Manitoba. It’s tenuous, bumpy, and looks like it been drawn on by a big, black crayon. Goddamn thing has been worked on for I don’t know how long and it isnt even finished. Where they renovate the highway is entirely random.
If by government you mean the non voluntary territorial monopoly on force run by a bunch of hucksters and mafioso types, then they should provide nothing. They should all be lynched for treason, they turned guns on innocent people and said give me your wealth. If you wanna attribute a voluntary non monopolist aspect to government, then they should provide the what the people wish it to.
He’s being sarcastic, but it doesn’t come across well online. Ironic is better.
Because it is more efficient and operates on a consensual basis as opposed to a violent basis.
All of the services you mentioned are paid through taxes, if the government handles them. Property tax means the government is claiming ultimate title to your property, income taxe mean they’re claiming ultimate title to your person, and sales taxes are no different from paying off mobsters to not throw bricks through your store window. And if you’re going to have the government provide the services you mentioned why not have them provide everyone with a house, food, a job, and a means of transportation? They we can all sit around and sing Mama’s Little Baby Loves Shortenin Shortenin, Mama’s Little Baby Loves Shortenin Bread.
I agree with all these, but I think I’d add in national defense. I see police but I do not see the armed forces.
This is just my opinion, but I think space exploration is a massive waste of money, government or private. If there really is that much money in xenomaterials, then the money would be better spent developing more efficient fuel and propulsion systems. But that’s a wee bit off topic.
As for my views: I would say, none but police, and even that would be limited by the fact private security contractors would be a lot more prevalent. And bloomj31 does have a good point regarding the absence of national defense.
I’m sorry, you really got hammered here, these forums are super Voluntaryist, therefore I will answer your final question with two quotes from my favorite economist ever.
Because
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
-Frédéric Bastiat
Because the private sector exists, the private sector doesn’t feed itself by the forced concent and forced funds of its consumers, the private sector is voluntary and can actually calculate its sucess, and furthermore because:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
-Frédéric Bastiat
