Martin Kelly wrote about my own earlier observations on Boris Johnson's alcohol ban on the London Tube.
Martin claims that:
libertarians...forget that even in the smallest of all possible British states, the authorities would retain a monopoly on forceand that could justify:
banning alcohol from public places.
Again, the libertarian position is a bit more nuanced than that. First, individuals in a libertarian limited state would retain the right of self-defence. The state wouldn't enjoy a monopoly on all uses of force. Second, what is a "public space"? The Tube is arguably a public place (given its current ownership), but "public" houses aren't. Nor are football stadia for that matter. Libertarians think that the Tube should be privatised thus ceasing to be a "public place" but rather a place into which the public are allowed to enter subject to the owner's regulations - just like on the railways. There's an important difference. The rules concerning entry that are set by the owners could include an alcohol ban.
3 comments:
Comments made on previous template:
Martin
David,
Re the Glasgow Subway, failing to achieve part ownership ould be no great loss - having once been woken up by the Johnstone Sons of the Somme flute band, I no longer concern myself with things which are orange and go round in circles.
21 May 2008, 06:27:10 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
David Farrer
Alan
no fewer than 18 different strains of libertarian principle, from Agorism to Paleolibertarianism to Left-Libertarianism and all points in between.
I wouldn't accept that all of these are "real" libertarians. I came up with a drastic solution to this problem here!
This book by Brian Doherty is a good place to learn about libertarianism, properly understood. He focuses on those he considers to be the top five libertarians. In order of increasing radicalism: Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rand & Rothbard. I agree with that selection and think that anyone lacking a good grounding in the works of all five authors can't really be considered to be an expert on libertarianism.
20 May 2008, 21:02:26 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Alan
[italic]Limited state libertarians (as opposed to the anarcho-capitalist variety) believe that the state does have a role, namely to provide protection against aggressors [/italic]
David, surely that in a sense sums up why the great libertarian revolution will never happen? I can find, at a cursory glance, no fewer than 18 different strains of libertarian principle, from Agorism to Paleolibertarianism to Left-Libertarianism and all points in between.
For a philosophy which has yet to gain a serious foothold in any deomcracy that's a fair few splits!
Also, there does seem to be a large degree of bitterness between different sects over differences which, in the wider world would be viewed purely as corrosive by their nature, but non-divisive in actuality. Have you found this?
20 May 2008, 20:15:16 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
David Farrer
Neil (Hello there!)
But what if all land (other than police stations, courts and military bases) were privately owned? After the great libertarian revolution (!) shares in the Tube should be handed out to taxpayers. If this arrangement were localised you would be the proud owner of part of the Glasgow Subway. Sadly Martin may be just beyond the boundary...
20 May 2008, 19:52:43 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
David Farrer
Alan,
Isn't that a contradiction? You don't trust the state to enforce rules such as an alcohol ban, but you do trust the state's agents to provide 'robust policing'. Surely having your cake and eating it?
No. Limited state libertarians (as opposed to the anarcho-capitalist variety) believe that the state does have a role, namely to provide protection against aggressors. Therefore police, courts and the military would exist and should be supported in such a society.
given that many millions of people have died in the name of single-system adherence through dictatorial communists, socialists, fascists, kleptocrats, autocrats and oligarchs, isn't libertarianism just another desire to control peoples' free will?
But the difference is that all of those others want to impose their rule on others. Libertarians simply wish to be left alone and also think that others should also be left alone. Big difference! Capital can't control anyone in a society in which all transactions are voluntary - any more than can labour.
Giant corporations may well exist in a libertarian society but lots of today's ones are big simply because of state privileges that libertarians oppose.
20 May 2008, 19:41:03 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Comments made on previous template:
David Farrer
Martin,
libertarianism is a philosopohy based in negativity, specifically being against the state
Essentially that's correct. The problem with those "positive" approaches is that they necessitate the removal of someone else's liberty. The right to education, the right to housing, the right to an income etc. all raise the obvious question: provided by whom? What if no one else wants to pay for these things voluntarily? Libertarians favour "negative" liberty - and I agree that that's an unfortunate term for propaganda purposes! All we say is that people shouldn't face aggression from others. None of this means that libertarians oppose voluntary help for other people. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and is solely about the relationship between the state and the individual.
20 May 2008, 18:55:59 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Neil Craig
The Tube is in an anomalous position because its existence is not a matter of nature existing since the time of the noble savage. Without investment it could not exist & therefore the common rights over, for example, common land or free air cannot exist. It is therefore in the position of inherently being private publicly owned property. The state being in the role of private owner rather than social regulator. That being the case the owner has as much right to regulate as a public house owner (also a bad term because it is privately owned) has.
20 May 2008, 18:33:58 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Comments made on previous template:
Alan
David, you said this:
"libertarians have an extreme distrust of the state - for good historical reasons..."
Then you went on to say this:
"So in cases like this we tend to err, so to speak, on the side of "liberalism" and would prefer that the yob problem be addressed directly by means of robust policing..."
Isn't that a contradiction? You don't trust the state to enforce rules such as an alcohol ban, but you do trust the state's agents to provide 'robust policing'. Surely having your cake and eating it?
Isn't an adherence to any philosophy inherently an anti-libertarian stance? Surely, if one wants to display true libertarianism, one's first action would be to denounce any sort of slavish devotion to any philosophy, be that libertarianism, socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism or whatever?
Also, given that many millions of people have died in the name of single-system adherence through dictatorial communists, socialists, fascists, kleptocrats, autocrats and oligarchs, isn't libertarianism just another desire to control peoples' free will? Surely those with control of the capital would be in a position to abuse those with less who presumably would have little recourse to regulation as there would be little?
Also, the state usually behaves in its own self interest, that is, in the manner of a giant corporation. Surely the state is therefore the ultimate libertarian?
20 May 2008, 09:42:02 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Martin
David,
Again hopefully without snippiness, it would thus seem to be the case that libertarianism is a philosopohy based in negativity, specifically being against the state, than in any positive approach to individual liberty. Without a state to rail against, libertarianism seems to be nothing.
19 May 2008, 18:25:06 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Peter Risdon
"... prefer that the yob problem be addressed directly by means of robust policing"
This has the additional benefit that people who are not causing a nuisance are not penalised along with those who are.
19 May 2008, 11:47:07 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
David Farrer
Martin,
No snippiness detected!
I agree that Jonhson is managing on behalf of the current owners and there is an argument that says that it's OK to manage just as he would were the Tube in private hands. But libertarians have an extreme distrust of the state - for good historical reasons. So in cases like this we tend to err, so to speak, on the side of "liberalism" and would prefer that the yob problem be addressed directly by means of robust policing. In a fully libertarian society (the non-anarchist version) the only state-owned property would be police stations, courts and military bases, reflecting the state's very limited role.
19 May 2008, 07:19:00 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply
Martin
David, your post doesn't really seem to answer my original point.By enacting an alcohol ban, isn't Johnson speaking for the current owners or - and please don't think I'm being snippy if I ask this so directly, it's because I don't understand - does libertarianism not recognise that governments can exercise rights over the property they administer?
And I very much doubt whether the number of stabbings and muggings on the Tube would be diminished by its privatisation. An alcohol ban at Scottish football grounds helped solve the problem of soccer violence; and a similar ban might have no effect on the London Underground, but I think Johnson deserves some credit for trying to do something, rather than what seems like carping from the sidelines about his lack of ideological purity. Whih is more important, saving lives or scoring points?
18 May 2008, 15:01:39 GMT+01:00
Post a Comment