Libertarianism and natural disasters

[Undesired Walrus]

Suppose we invent two potential catastrophes. In one, an asteroid is detected on a direct collision course with the Earth. In the other, a incredibly deadly flu pandemic is sweeping the world.

I'd be interested to see the Libertarian view on how to deal with such issues. Do you believe that the free market would be capable of neutralising these threats better and more efficiently than the Government would be?

Using one example from one of these potential catastrophes, imagine that the pandemic is so virulent that public spaces like cinemas and theatres have to be shut to stop it from spreading. In a Libertarian world view, would it be wrong for the Government to shut them down? Would the free market handle it better?

This isn't an attempt to antagonise any Libertarians. I'm just interested in whether you think the Free Market, in these cases, would be better.

 

[richardm]

I'm just interested in whether you think the Free Market, in these cases, would be better.

I think most Libertarians would, by definition, say that the Free Market would be better in every case imaginable.

In the specific case of the pandemic, I'm guessing that many would say that it's the theatre owner's choice to open his business or not, and it's the individual's choice to attend the theatre or not. Only an idiot would go to an enclosed public space in the middle of a pandemic, and if people want to be idiots that's their right, so screw 'em.

I'm not sure that the common good ever enters the equation, so taking a universal stand for it doesn't seem very likely. I'm prepared to be surprised, though.

 

[Cleon]

Under a truly free market, there would be no natural disasters.

 

[richardm]

Under a truly free market, there would be no natural disasters.

Meteor Strike = Mining Opportunity?
Pandemic = Boom for Undertakers, Coffin Makers and Crematoria?

Not a disaster but a shot at the big time!

 

[Noztradamus]

Suppose we invent two potential catastrophes. ~~~~

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken

 

[Beerina]

I think most Libertarians would, by definition, say that the Free Market would be better in every case imaginable.

Not necessarily. But the vast bulk of the time it is.

I could grant you flu pandemics and dangerous asteroids, sound good?

Meanwhile, back to 99.9% of human life which, I hasten to point out, will be much more economically powerful with free market capitalism, allowing the dealing with asteroids and pandemics all that much more easily.


But I doubt that's the answer, true as it is, that you want to hear.


Ayn Rand called these "lifeboat situations", and found it bizarre that people wanted to set up daily life according to what (might) be appropriate in an emergency.

 

[Praktik]

Wouldn't all the extra TRILLIONS saved by Libertopia in government waste prevent all natural disasters anyway?

I imagine a few trillion saved from burdensome health care, roads, sanitation, food inspectors, drug regulators, traffic coordination, public transit, schools, the EPA, DEA and other acronyms would almost ensure that the private sector would create an Earth Shield to repel asteroids. And wouldn't a private health care industry - unburdened by regulation - have developed a Super Immune System pill to stop any pandemic in its tracks??

 

[jfeheley]

The free market and individual liberty is something that works over time. A problem that exists with big government will not be fixed quickly by the free market. Individual Liberty over time is the only way to find out the best way to do anything. All ideas compete and eventually the best ones win out. Unlike one size fits all as in big federal government.

Evolution is the ultimate example of Individual Liberty and the Free Market producing the best of everything.

Jerry

 

[hgc]

All ideas compete and eventually the best ones win out.

This is absurd. Ideas don't win. People with power win. This is just as true in Libertopia as it is in the USA.

 

[Beerina]

This is absurd. Ideas don't win. People with power win. This is just as true in Libertopia as it is in the USA.

Very true. So...the best system would be one that diverted their energies into things that benefited the average person the most?

Or, more specifically, simply outlawed them from twisting their power into coercive control of others?

 

[hgc]

Very true. So...the best system would be one that diverted their energies into things that benefited the average person the most?

Or, more specifically, simply outlawed them from twisting their power into coercive control of others?

I don't quite follow. Who is "them" in this scenario? What externality is going to divert their energies?

 

[jfeheley]

This is absurd. Ideas don't win. People with power win. This is just as true in Libertopia as it is in the USA.

Oh you must be talking about the federal government as it exists now.

I am talking about a government system that had true Individual Liberty where no person could do anything that denied another person's individual liberty and no person or group could use force against another person. Simple yet complex in analyzing its unfolding mechanism for a better life for all.

You are talking about people with power using force to win. That is a no no in what I am suggesting.

Jerry

 

[LukeB]

You might as well be talking about pixies and unicorns for all the connection your suggestion has with reality.

 

[hgc]

Oh you must be talking about the federal government as it exists now.

I'm talking about human civilization, in every instance, in every place, at every point in history and pre-history.

I am talking about a government system that had true Individual Liberty where no person could do anything that denied another person's individual liberty and no person or group could use force against another person. Simple yet complex in analyzing its unfolding mechanism for a better life for all.

It has never existed yet, but dream on.

 

[Piggy]

Ayn Rand called these "lifeboat situations", and found it bizarre that people wanted to set up daily life according to what (might) be appropriate in an emergency.

On the other hand, there's a reason why Ayn Rand had to use fiction to express her philosophy: there are no real-world situations in which it works.

According to this line of thought, we shouldn't buy insurance in "daily life" because we only need it in an emergency.

But in any case, government is extremely useful in all sorts of "daily life" issues.

For instance, I'm glad that I can pay a pittance of tax to have inspectors make sure restaurants are clean. There's no way I (and every other patron) could do that on my own.

I'm glad there's a military, not just a hodgepodge of ragtag militias.

And I'm glad there are interstate highways and state highways and county roads, and that I don't have to rely on my neighbors to make sure the route from my house to my job is kept clear and usable.

I'm glad there's a single court system, and not some sharia-like patchwork of competing claims (which is what the "patriot" militias and "sovereign citizens" and Posse Comitatus nutjobs would like to impose).

In any case, the OP is asking specifically about the risks of overly decentralized government (or no government) in case of national emergency.

One does not have to believe that daily life should be lived as if we actually were in a state of emergency in order for that question to be seriously considered, because national emergencies do arise from time to time, and when they do, they're real bears.

 

[Piggy]

All ideas compete and eventually the best ones win out.

Which is why the USA overwhelmingly believes that a divine superbeing fathered a child with a Hebrew woman and sent him to die on the cross as a blood sacrifice, and those who don't accept that are doomed to eternal torture.

What a great idea! Makes much more sense than all those silly scientific theories. I mean, hey, they're all just "theories" after all. See, even scientists admit they're just guessing.

 

[SezMe]

The free market and individual liberty is something that works over time. A problem that exists with big government will not be fixed quickly by the free market. Individual Liberty over time is the only way to find out the best way to do anything. All ideas compete and eventually the best ones win out. Unlike one size fits all as in big federal government.

That's rich. It starts with a one-size-fits-all proscription for societal organization, describes it as the best way to do anything, then describes big government as one-size-fits-all.

Pot, kettle, etc.

 

[Piggy]

I am talking about a government system that had true Individual Liberty where no person could do anything that denied another person's individual liberty and no person or group could use force against another person. Simple yet complex in analyzing its unfolding mechanism for a better life for all.

Do tell, what system is that?

 

[Earthborn]

Evolution is the ultimate example of Individual Liberty and the Free Market producing the best of everything.

Evolution is not free of Force and Fraud, and it does not produce the best of everything. Evolutionists have very often tried to dispel the myth that evolution is directional and moves towards continual improvement. It doesn't; it just muddles along.

Some Libertarians love to compare the Free Market with all sorts of natural phenomena to give their ideology an air of naturalness and obviousness. They can only do so by misrepresenting them, because those natural phenomena are rife with the things they despise -- such as force, fraud and parasitism -- and have led to the development of the government systems they want to get rid of.

 

[Beerina]

Very true. So...the best system would be one that diverted their energies into things that benefited the average person the most?

Or, more specifically, simply outlawed them from twisting their power into coercive control of others?

I don't quite follow. Who is "them" in this scenario? What externality is going to divert their energies?

By forbidding "them", the power-hungry, from being able to literally force you to buy their products, or to force competitors out of business, they have to compete for your voting dollar.

"They" are no longer able to achieve power and wealth by being government employees or leaders, the standard operating procedure for most of humanity, most of human history. And we know how well that went for the "average person".