h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the strong screwing the weak," but such a system as I think you're describing is the job of the (or a) Constitution or general government structure, not of any specific political party or even philosophy. Read James Madison's Federalist No. 10 [URL removed by moderator] which describes how a government structure (specifically, the American Constitution) should keep strong factions from screwing small factions. Libertarians in the USA are ALL ABOUT our Constitution (except the 16th Amendment, naturally ), and they certainly believe that no person or party should be able to be unfairly taken advantage of.

And Libertarians are also all about allowing people to escape from poverty by working hard and spending/saving/investing their money well. The party believes that income taxes and sales taxes on food make this difficult (Food taxes, being the same for all, hit poor families especially hard)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the strong screwing the weak," but such a system as I think you're describing is the job of the (or a) Constitution or general government structure, not of any specific political party or even philosophy. Read James Madison's Federalist No. 10 ([URL removed by moderator] ), which describes how a government structure (specifically, the American Constitution) should keep strong factions from screwing small factions. Libertarians in the USA are ALL ABOUT our Constitution (except the 16th Amendment, naturally ), and they certainly believe that no person or party should be able to be unfairly taken advantage of.

And Libertarians are also all about allowing people to escape from poverty by working hard and spending/saving/investing their money well. The party believes that income taxes and sales taxes on food and other goods make this difficult (Food taxes, being the same for everyone, hit poor families especially hard). Conversely, they believe that corporations should only be able to become rich by making the best product or providing the best service at a competitive price, not by getting subsidies or grants from the government. Basically, they want to make sure that people are either poor because they deserve to be or rich because they deserve to be. Ensuring that everyone has the same *opportunity* to gain an education and a job is a trick, of course, but all political parties struggle with it.

My turn to apologize for the repetition - I accidentally hit "Post" while I was still writing

Wombat has an excellent point... society has troubles that the government can't seem to control, but also can't leave alone. The libertarian ideal would be great, if we lived in a perfect world; however, I don't see how it could be justified to just throw away, for example, drug laws, etc...

Supply-side economics came from Reagan? I suggest you read the article again... the first Libertarian Party was founded in the US in 1972. Reagan wasn't elected until 1980. Who stole from whom?

I find it odd that you believe that libertarianism contains no buffers to protect the individual from large or powerful groups. According to the libertarian core, that is government's sole purpose. Government is supposed to protect labor from the abuses of the corporation, the corporation from the abuses of organized labor, and everyone from the lawbreakers and outside invaders. Any government regulatory body that exists to provide one of these functions, and does so with some measure of success, would of course be retained.

As for the de-criminalization of drugs, all you have to do is look at the 1930's for a parallel. When the alcohol prohibition was passed, crime skyrocketed, as the black-market value for alcohol created a feeding frenzy for gangsters, and innocent civilians who did nothing but drink a beer were thrown in jail. Gang wars tore up the cities, and corrupt officials ended up on the payroll of the more successful gang bosses.

Any of that sound familiar? It should, because it is exactly what we're experienceing with the "war on drugs." The war has not gone any better than prohibition did. Eventually, people realized that outlawing alcohol was not the answer. Yes, we still have the problems of some people drinking to excess, and acting irresponsibly, like drinking and driving. But rather than punish people, we've decided to educate people. As a result, the large majority of the population uses alcohol responsibly, and doesn't cause any harm. And with moderate use, there are some benefits. But if people begin to display a problem, there is counseling and addiction programs to help. And these programs have been far more effective than criminalization ever was. So let it be with drugs. Marijuana, for example, is far less harmful than alcohol... unlike alcohol, nobody has ever died of an overdose of marijuana, and it doesn't cause violent reactions that alcohol often causes.

So to summarize, decriminalization will: eliminate violent crimes associated with the black market drug trade, free up prison space, give people who were arrested for minor drug offenses a new lease on life, create an atmosphere where people will feel much more comfortable with seeking help for their addictions, and eliminate the drug culture where the pusher attempts to get his customers to try the most powerfully addictive narcotics, in order to drive up his revenues (pushers really hate the recreational pot smoker, because there's not much profit margin in pot... too difficult and expensive to grow, but everyone is growing it, so it is in heavy supply). We save lives, and we save money. It's a win-win proposition. Incidentally, recreational drug use has been a part of every culture in every time, including the US prior to the 60's. It was only when we started making such a huge fuss about it that it became such a big problem.

I meant that the Reagan administration was the first time those policies were actually put into practice, but point taken...

Okay, keeping drugs as the example... granted, Prohibition experiences and marijuana are similar, and granted that marijuana is not physically addictive(very psychologically so, but who's counting). Pot is very arguable both ways. However, am I correct in assuming the libertarians' ideology would legalize all drugs? Heroin, cocaine, LSD... you can't really compare just "drinking a beer" to just taking one hit of acid. These are potent, addictive, damaging drugs, and there's not much of a case for 'casual' narcotics use. How would legalizing them possibly save lives? People will still become addicted and desperate.

Interesting article, and an intelligent discussion too.

One point... I think the early American policy of military non-intervention in other people's problems is a little out of date in today's global economy. The truth is that it's very difficult, in this day and age, to draw such clear distinctions between other people's affairs and one's own. Short sharp efficient intervention is often the best way of nipping someone else's problem in the bud before it becomes everyone else's problem as well. I would say that the world's wealthiest and most democratic countries *do* have a responsibility to act as something like global policemen today, even if only out of enlightened self-interest. An example would be Kosovo, which was not simply a humanitarian intervention but also a pragmatic attempt to prevent a dictator from spreading his territory and adding momentum to an anti-democratic movement. And it seems to have worked well enough, too, in combination with sanctions and general opprobrium from the UN.

Another thing, more of a question this time... I wouldn't mind some further clarification of the distinction between liberal and libertarian. The article states that the latter has its roots in the former, and this makes sense enough to me, bearing in mind that liberalism was essentially about social mobility in a free-market environment before the former was hijacked by the Left and the latter was hijacked by the Right. Nowadays (I'm referring specifically to the UK here, because it's the only example I know well), liberal thought seems to have collapsed into a woolly kind of compromise between the other two parties, and it is difficult to see exactly what it might distinctively stand for today.

But I still don't exactly get the reason for wanting to use the term 'Libertarian' rather than 'Liberal'. Why not, if you acknowledge the richness of the liberal heritage, simply try to reclaim that label and re-juvenate it for our own times - in other words, try to 'hijack' the term 'Liberal' back from the woolly impasse it's gotten itself into. I don't quite see the magic in the term 'Libertarian'. Is it simply because the word 'Liberal' has too many negative connotations with many people in some countries - eg, half of America seems to recoil every time they hear the word - and therefore it would be political suicide to use it too freely?

In short... any chance of a liberal / libertarian pact? Or are we really thinking the same things anyway?...

I think it is partly the negative connotations with 'liberal' in some people's minds, but also the two groups are at odds on some issues. For example, (using US groups because that's what I'm familiar with) the Democratic party here(our mainstream liberals) is in favor of high taxes to fund huge bureocracies known as "social programs". The Libertarians of course are totally against that. Also, our Democrats are highly regulatory, attempting to pass laws restricting damn near everything, whereas the Libertarians are more of the self-governing mind.

I understand your point, Marc - today's liberals tend to be rather more interventionist than the libertarian stance. Fair enough. But I was picking away at the article's implication (as I read it) that libertarian thought seems pretty much the same as classic liberal thought. Why not just use the term 'Liberal' and denounce modern-day interventionist liberalism as a woolly-minded shadow of its predecessor?

Following my last post...

An example would be the moral liberalism of many mainland European countries, perhaps most notably the Netherlands. Their drug policies, for example, and their policies on prostitution, are pretty close to the libertarian platform as presented in this article. They seem to have worked quite well, too - better than the absurd 'war on drugs' mantras that we keep getting in Britain, which are rather like yours in the US, and equally unsuccesful. But they were enlightened liberal governments that implemented those policies in the Netherlands. This goes to show that liberalism today can - in some countries, at least - approach something like a modern-day version of the classic liberal viewpoint, and, if so, this would maybe seem to eliminate the need for a separate movement referring to itself as 'Libertarian'.

I have to admit I'm almost totally unaware of the current political situation in the Netherlands... I know they recently changed some laws, but I don't know much about the aftereffects, which could be a good measurement of the success of those policies...

Lear: I can understand your point about intervention on the part of other countries. However, how often have we seen a real example of "enlightened self-interest"? More often it is wrong-headed self-interest, to the detriment of the people in the area. In the Middle-East, for instance, rather than going to war over access to oil (and what else could the Gulf War have been about, considering that they left Hussein in power?), the Western countries should be developing the means to exist without oil. But all that aside, how can economic powerhouses Germany and Japan justify allowing others to carry their own defensive burdens? If anything, they should be members of the family of wealthy democracies that crusades for the weaker ones.

Liberal vs libertarian: The meaning of the word liberal has evolved, and it does not mean what it used to. Libertarianism is a made-up word that means what liberal *used* to mean. Classic liberals like Adam Smith and John Locke believed in everyone helping themselves, just like the libertarians. But modern liberals are firm believers in government programs to level the economic playing field for everyone. Liberals love government programs. Libertarians hate them. That is probably your most defining difference between the two. But when you use the word "liberal" anymore, the ideas that appear in people's heads are at odds with what the libertarians are working towards. You have to be able to communicate the right idea. In order to do that, you have to use the right word. "Liberal" was the right term a century ago, but it simply won't do anymore, so "libertarian" has been elected to take its place.

Another example of word evolution is the term "gay". In the "gay '90's" (that's the 1890's), the word simply meant a happy, positive outlook or mood. Today, calling someone gay means you believe that they like to have sex with the same sex, and is often used with a negative connotation. I won't say that the term "liberalism" has been stretched that far, but the argument still stands that the term means something completely different to us than it did to our great-grandparents.

Yes, military intervention can often be wrong-headed. Diplomatic intervention too, an example being Clinton's idiotic meddling in the Arab-Israeli 'peace process', which was actually moving along slowly but quite nicely - orchestrated on fairer terms by the UN - before he started playing global statesman. But I think the principle I was outlining is a solid enough one - those who would wish to ensure the continuation of the free world should be alert to possible threats to it from outside, and should also help those outside the free world who are themselves trying to undermine such threats.

I assume the Germany / Japan thing goes back to the aftermath of the Second World War, when the Allied powers kept 'peacekeeping' troops in those two countries basically because they weren't considered trustworthy to develop their own forces. Fifty years on, in a very different world, I would agree that this is absurd. I think it may be coming to an end anyway, though - for example, German Luftwaffe planes flew on missions outside Germany for the first time since WW2, in the recent Kosovo crisis. The EC is currently trying to develop its own defence arrangements - I assume Germany would play a role in this - in order to reduce our dependence on NATO. I think this would be a healthy thing for all concerned, personally. But I don't think your new President is too enthusiastic about the idea...

The point about word evolution seems fair enough. Nothing stays the same. Maybe I'm being a little nit-picky. But I think liberalism may have more of an image problem, so to speak, in America than it does in many other countries. I don't think there is such a widespread virulent hatred of anything connected with the word 'liberal' here in Europe, for example. I'm not sure that 'Libertarianism' as a term would be likely to 'take' in any really significant way in the mainstream politics of Western European countries, although I think the ideas themselves can (and do) enjoy support the whole way across the spectrum from left to right. Probably a better approach here would be to incorporate libertarian / classic liberal ideas within the existing liberal mainstream - as I say, in some cases this is happening already.

Here's a question I have about libertarian philosophy - where would a true believer stand on environmental regulations? Should anyone be allowed to use state lands for any use regardless of impact? What about protecting endangered species; what about environmental regulations on private lands, private automobiles, federal subsidizing of mass transportation, etc....
I'm asking the question not to be combative, but because I don't know the answer.

Liberalism does have a bad rap here in the States, just as much as conservatism. The two extremes throw so much mud at each other that it takes an act of courage to stand up an admit to either. Liberalism probably has a worse rap, though, because their fondness for government programs draws comparisons to communism, and any association with communism in American politics is tantamount to political suicide.

He's not MY president... I certainly didn't vote for him...

I don't know that liberalism and libertarianism *can* be merged, at least in American politics. I think the divide over social programs is too large. That particular stance is the reason liberals label us as "right-wing." Economically, libertarians have more in common with the conservatives than with the liberals.

Research by the Cato Institute (a libertarian think-tank, their website is linked in the article) reveals that the single greatest polluter is the government. The government leases out land to companies, and those companies have no interest in the long-term value of the land, so they destroy it at their leisure. Privately-owned lands put to the same purposes (mining, logging, manufacturing, etc.) simply don't show the same extreme levels of neglect or abuse. By selling off government land to private citizens who will care about the long-term value of the land, they believe they will, in effect, create a class of caretakers. They also argue that people understand the need for protection of the environment today, and, as a result, will continue the process of minimizing their impact without interference from the government. Ford Motors is an excellent demonstration of this. Gross polluters would probably still appear, and at this point, government intervention is acceptable.

Automobiles would be left alone. Market forces will cause people to adapt to cleaner vehicles on their own. Mass transport would be funded by private organizations and run on a for-profit basis.

There's a lot that you said that I disagree with.

1) You seem to be suggesting selling off government land to private citizens and corporations and let them do with it as they see fit.
The issue I have with this is (in the US) the citizens have been paying for the maintenance and "protection" (not very good in most cases) of this land for centuries. I WANT the land to remain public. If you sell it to farmers, they will cut down trees, shoot the predators, and put up fences to keep me out. Same with ranchers. Miners will dig huge pits and despoil the water. Either way, I'm unlikely to be allowed to go camping there in a pristine wilderness. The Grand Canyon would have condos on the rim, with private airplanes flying over 24/7. The redwood forest would have been converted to a line of dining room furniture long ago.

2. While Ford Motors is now often held up as a symbol of corporate environmental responsibility, they are an exception, and if you have been following the Explorer business you will know they can't be trusted to tell people the truth. The paper industry, the chemical industry, the biotech industry, and the mining industry simply can't be left to their own devices. Every environmental reform they have taken has been because they were forced, kicking and screaming. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders, not to be "responsible citizens", because they aren't citizens.

3. Automobiles, one of the primary causes of pollution, would still be without catalytic converters and getting 10 miles to the gallon would it be up to private citizens in the US. To me here is an egregious example where more government intervention is needed. The increased gas mileage in cars in the US is due largely to government regulation, as is the decreased NOx pollutants - this was NOT due to market forces. You may argue that eventually, private companies would come around to these improvements, but I believe it would be too late. We don't have forever for market forces to take hold. Once again, most of the environmental improvements in the automobile industry was due to still inadeguate government interference.

1) You don't seem to realize that the government is already doing this. We're not talking about the slim percentage of US land that is protected as a national preserve. We're talking about the other 60% or so (I don't have my book handy that contains the true stat, but I can provide it later if you're interested) of US land that belongs to the government. They lease it to loggers, who defoliate it. They lease it to miners, who use strip-mining techniques. They lease it to farmers and ranchers, who don't have to fence it in, because the government has already done it. National preserves would remain national preserves, but the other vast tracts of land would be better managed by people than by the government.

2) Of course we can't trust corporations. We're not advocating the complete dissolution of the government. My personal stance on the tire thing with the Ford Explorer is that, if the company can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have known of the dangers, then they should not only face suit for punitive damages, but the CEO and his immediate subordinates should face criminal charges for endangerment and murder. But, as a footnote, Ford didn't have anything to do with the case... it was the tire manufacturer, Firestone, that was under the gun.

"Every environmental reform they have taken has been because they were forced, kicking and screaming." - Don't start making declarative statements like this, or you'll end up chewing your toenails. We've already agreed that Ford made their own changes willingly. There are also examples of environmental advances that have been blocked by regulatory bodies. Safety advances have suffered the same fate. The argument can be made that regulatory bodies, in many instances, hurt more than they help.

3) Cars stopped getting 10mpg for two reasons, both completely irrelevant to the government: the 1970's oil crisis, and the entry of Japan into the American car market. The oil crisis drove up fuel prices to the point that a 10mpg car was no longer very fun. Then the Japanese began exporting very inexpensive cars that got 20-25mpg. Only corporate welfare from the government saved GM, Ford, and Chrysler from bankruptcy during the late 70's-late 80's, because everyone fell in love with the cheaper, more reliable, more efficient Japanese models. Detroit was forced by market forces to begin delivery of cars that were more reliable and had comparable fuel efficiency to the Japanese brands.

Gas mixtures that produce fewer NOx pollutants have also come from market forces. As the people became more environmentally conscious, it only made sense to market your fuel as environment-friendly. Since we have laws against false advertising, in order to advertise their fuel mixtures as cleaner, they first had to make them so.

Incidentally, the huge SUV's get about 10mpg. And I haven't noticed the government working themselves up over it. It seems to me that gas mileage is now, as it ever has been, "up to private citizens in the US."

I disagree. Of course I understand the government allows corporations to lease the land. However, the reason the mining act of 1872, the lax grazing and logging laws are still on the books is because corporations have been paying off congressmen for years to keep them that way. Commerce uber alles. So if corporations actually had the land with no government to worry about, why would they change their practices? At least the government has become more environmentally conscious, the same cannot be said for those industries, as I said earlier.
Vast tracts of lands will only be divided up into small affordable tracts of land for people to do what they want with it, or sold to corporations who will use it for profit. Either way, the public will not have a say what happens to it, as they are supposed to if the American government functioned properly.
Ford has already been shown to have 1) known about the tire problem earlier, and 2) knowingly written into their manuals improperly low tire pressure. They have contributed along with Firestone / Bridgestone to the problem. This is why they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars in cash settlements to victims (although trying to hush them up) Perhaps you caught the televised videotape of Ford executives apologizing to a parapeligic woman in her hospital bed, while delivering a check?
I wasn't referring to Ford when I said every environmental reform has been forced kicking and screaming on mining, logging, and chemical companies. The fact is, this statement is true. There is absolutely no monetary benefit for these companies to preserve the enviroment, except lawsuit.
"The argument can be made that regulatory bodies, in many instances, hurt more than they help." - I'd like to hear that argument.
You don't have all the facts if you think that gas mileage and less polluting exhuast came about solely on industry initiative. Government funded research at universities led to many of these improvements, research that is still going on today.
This leads me to my conclusion - while market forces are an important driver to corporations they can not be counted on to reflect the will of the people. The pursuit of the dollar is not inextricably linked to what is best for the environment. The government is a necessary evil to steer corporations to practices that not only make money, but also protect individuals and the environment. That the government does a bad job of this is mostly due to the fact that they are in the pockets of corporate lobbyists. (We can argue about campaign finance reform if you like) But just because the system has been corrupted does not mean that the ideology is wrong. As a footnote, the EPA has been trying to require trucks and SUVs to meet minimum MPG levels for the last eight years, but because of corporate lobbyists Clinton never went along with their recommendations.

The gist of your last posting is that the government doesn't do anything to regulate the environment, because it is corrupt and nullified by lobbyists. Why, then, should we retain such a useless body in its present form? "Either way, the public will not have a say what happens to it, as they are supposed to if the American government functioned properly." - So you admit it doesn't work. Why defend it then?

You are mistaken about the land-use policies being motivated solely by corporations. The greater motivating power here is the chance for re-election... my local Congressman sends me regular updates bragging about the wonderful pork-barrel projects he has gained for my district, as if they're somehow managing to benefit me in some way. Many of them are land-abuse contracts for logging and strip-mining, for example.

"I wasn't referring to Ford when I said every environmental reform has been forced kicking and screaming on mining, logging, and chemical companies. The fact is, this statement is true." - No, you were referring to *all* environmental reform, so this includes Ford, and therefore, your statement is very much false. See what I mean about declarative statements? Ford is simply the most visible and recent example of this. If you need me to do further research, I will, and I'll uncover tons of eco-friendly companies... companies who manufacture only biodegradeable soaps or use only recycled packaging without any interference from the government whatsoever, simply doing it from social consciousness or because of market forces.

"Government funded research at universities led to many of these improvements, research that is still going on today." - But now you'll have to explain to me how some research paper managed to convince General Motors to build a car that got 50 miles to the gallon. You've already told me that the car makers are heartless, so if they didn't do it to make a profit, why did they?

"The government is a necessary evil to steer corporations to practices that not only make money, but also protect individuals and the environment." - As succinct of a summation of libertarian philosophy as I've ever encountered... you just might be a closet libertarian.