If the USA were more substantially libertarian in construction and demeanor, how would we respond to the arrival of an epidemic or pandemic of some nasty pathogen like swine flu? If the USA were decentralized into quanta of individual market units, each responsible for his/her own well being, how could the spread of contagion be averted?
Would a libertarian republic be philosophically opposed to collectivist activity like combining resources to marshal a defense against a virus. Or, would the Austrian-school economists brush off the event as nothing more than a Malthusian disturbance in the direction of a much needed equilibrium between resources and population? If you cannot afford to protect yourself, then you are lazy or sadly unlucky. In any case, you’re on your own.
Would a Libertarian system first act to protect property and guns? Would libertarian economists issue a statement condemning collectivism and promoting the rights of individuals to buy as much Lysol, duct tape, plastic drop cloths, and surgical masks as the market will allow? Perhaps a Libertarian President (whatever that means) would put a team of economists on a pandemic, or better yet, the lowest bidding epidemiologists available from Craigs list?
Libertarians make a good deal of noise about the horrors of taxation and their unflinching admiration for the genius of the marketplace, property, and the right to stockpile guns and ammo. I agree, we’re paying too much in taxes. Government is way too big. And the dynamics of the market do provide lots of cool stuff for better living. True enough.
But the market is like a stomach (I had a better analogy, but it was rather unwholesome). It only knows that it is hungry. The stomach has no brain. The stomach only wants more. The stomach did not invent antibiotics, polyethylene, Buicks, antacid, jet engines, or bikinis. But the stomach did facilitate the invention of each of these items. We need a market mentality, but we also need an overarching sense of direction. We need a market that can sense and avoid driving off a Malthusian cliff.
Civilization is about infrastructure. And part of the infrastructure that the country as a whole can provide is biotechnology. Biotechnology was not developed by Warren Buffett or Ronald Reagan or the legions of celebrated MBA’s. It was slowly developed by publically financed university institutions over many years of apparently irrelevant research projects. University educated scientists were hired by private and public corporations who began to find ways of marketing biomedical technology. It evolved into molecular biology and medicine and eventually commercialized as a result of front funding by millions of skeptical and myopic taxpayers over several generations. Yes, the market has a big part in this in terms of the rational distribution of goods.
As a result of all of the initial “collectivism” through publically funded science, we have a first class infrastructure (the CDC) that is capable of monitoring the onset and progress of contagious diseases. This system funded originally by the public is able to mobilize vaccines and small molecule medicines to prevent suffering and the spread of disease. It is able to coordinate efforts and resources to benefit even the chronically irritable Libertarians.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 27, 2009 at 11:48 am
John
You might take a glance at the below link.
It involves a chemical conglomerate + legalizing cannibalism +taking over New Hampshire by anarchic libertarians. People seem to have too much free time on their hands.
I am not sure how anarchic libertarians can even assemble and have meetings. Sounds dangerous.
http://counterpunch.org/martens04272009.html
As Hunter S once said- “It never got weird enough for him.”
April 27, 2009 at 8:31 pm
gaussling
HST is one of my favorites. Did you catch this link on the one you posted?
http://www.freestateproject.org/
They can go anywhere they want, but no nukes.
April 28, 2009 at 2:47 pm
John
From the free state link-
“a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a culture of individual responsibility indicated by, for example, an absence of seatbelt and helmet requirements for adults.”
Yep, it was the restrictive seatbelt and helmet laws that were ruining my life. I can finally sleep at night knowing the true source of my woes.
April 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm
gaussling
That’s hilarious.
July 31, 2016 at 1:43 pm
PickPocket
Your argument is basically making an analogy between market and a stomach.
And then give two examples of tax-payer funded technological achievements.
There is not much substance here. Saying that the market needs direction doesn’t prove anything. Whenever there is collective urgency or need, there is demand. It’s that simple. There is nothing wrong with collective actions. The only thing that the libertarian/NAP-based perspective expects is that all undertakings be voluntary. Saying that a collective will eventually have a collective need and therefore needs a tiny minority of fallible, corruptible, no-better-than-anyone-else-in-any-noteworthy-capacity bureaucratic individuals to forcefully determine the fate of everyone else not only doesn’t follow but is immoral.
And then the two examples you use to make your case are just the usual fallacy of confusing the government with the thing. (Education = government, Infrastructure = government, Science = Government). Reminds me the argument that theists make that ‘Religious person X was a brilliant scientist, therefore his religion was responsible for his scientific ingenuity’.
August 1, 2016 at 10:49 am
gaussling
Hello there PickPocket,
The essay is a bit lean on content because I wasn’t about to write a dissertation on the topic. I’ll offer that the metaphor of the stomach was a bit light hearted, but was meant to imply something with a single channel of motivation.
Your commented that-
“Saying that a collective will eventually have a collective need and therefore needs a tiny minority of fallible, corruptible, no-better-than-anyone-else-in-any-noteworthy-capacity bureaucratic individuals to forcefully determine the fate of everyone else not only doesn’t follow but is immoral.”
I think this statement is an example of cynicism-as-analysis and I hear it often from libertarians in my sphere. In regard to the description of “fallible … -capacity bureaucratic individuals”, you assume that they have some choice in the decisions they carry out. Bureaucrats by definition are locked into narrow guidelines in terms of what they are allowed to do. State and federal governing bodies enact the code that are promulgated by the employees of the state. All organizations suffer from mission creep. The problem is gathering the political courage to trim it back.
In regard to a collective responding to an anticipated need of the collective, I think this argument fails to take into account the need for long term planning such as epidemiology, laws regulating construction of bridges, houses and plumbing, fire and electrical codes. Also we have laws regulating the manufacture of aircraft, motor vehicles, dam construction, flood plain designation, medical licensure, drug approval etc. You get the point. All of these regulations were in anticipation of events without the express consent of each person.
Organizations like FDA, OSHA, and EPA were formed in response to market activity expanding into products and practices that were harming citizens and fouling the water, land and skies.
I would say that much of the time what has been forced involuntarily on individuals is a world where many hazards committed voluntarily by other individuals are much diminished. In exchange for a safer world, some degrees of freedom are frozen out of our lives.
Are there situations where individuals are treated poorly and without justice. Obviously yes. So pitch in to change it rather than retreat into a utopian doctrine that justifies selfishness and social tunnel vision.
Economics is not physics. It is sociology with mathematics. People are social animals and will always form groups. And, individuals, political groups, and corporations will always seek to gain dominance. Somehow we have to have checks and balances that will inevitably be involuntary to someone.