[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] I'm not a libertarian (not in the modern sense at least), but this is a bad criticism to say the very least. It's pretty easy to offer a defense from a right-libertarian perspective. 1. Common policy should not be made by outlandish and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Torture isn't justified by the theoretical ticking bomb scenario, this shouldn't justify statism. 2. Firms would be incentivized to provide solutions to disasters such as this, since people will pay for it and it is greatly valued. 3. The only thing the State would do in such a situation is be able to save the political class, at best. The idea that the State could or would try to save everyone is utopian. Even if under a capitalist solution only the rich could afford to be saved, this would likely be the exact same if it was managed by the State. This kind of criticism based on unrealistic scenarios is on the same level as lefties who criticize Ayn Rand by saying "go play Bioshock" (yes, I have heard that argument actually used).pie-junior
1) natural disasters are not necessarily outlandish and hypothetical. considering the levels of potential damage- statism can very well be the effective solution.
2) Private firms compete with each other; they don't pool expertise together and they don't share resources. the private market, a lot of the time, can't offer an organized remedy in a timely fashion that would atleast have the chance of mitigating the possible damage. Not to mention, a lot of the times- dealing with a natural disaster would create a public good which would disincentivize private firms from creating it in the first place.
3) That is not true for any of real world, often occuring, natural disasters. see 1.
Natural disasters on a society-destroying scale are extremely rare (an asteroid was the orginal example), certainly rare enough to not make decisions based on their theoretical possibility. Even if this was a valid argument, it would at best be an argument for a minarchic state with disaster relief, not a state on the scale that exists today. Private firms pool resources if the incentive is there. I'm not even arguing for this position, but the idea that libertarians have no way of dealing with this is silly. In an ancap society, a free market of insurance companies could absolutely mitigate a natural disaster, and would have every incentive to if all or most people were insured. I'm not an ancap at all, but free market disaster relief has been written on pretty extensively, you should at least do some googling. Really? You mean the political class doesn't get preferential treatment when it comes to evacuation or aid from disasters? Are you actually arguing that? That's simply absurd. Moreover, yusuke's original example was an asteroid that would destroy societies. If that was the case, the first people to be saved would be the political class, to think anything else is asinine.
Log in to comment