|
|
|
"Short Answers to Tough Questions" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
Reprinted with permission from the book "Short Answers to Tough Questions"
|
 |
| Crime and Restitution |
Short Answers |
What happens if someone steals in a libertarian society?
|
In a libertarian society, agressors would be required to compensate their victims and pay for costs of their trial and apprehension. Studies 1 show that such restitution is one of the most effective deterrents known.
1 Randy E. Barnett, "Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice," Ethics 87: 293, 1977.
|
So what happens if the thief refuses to pay? Is the victim out of luck?
|
Thieves unwilling to make payments toward a court-ordered judgment would most likely be placed in a work prison. In addition to compensating their victims, inmates would be required to pay the expensive costs of imprisonment. Most thieves would probably make compensation payments rather than risk such a huge increase in their liability and the loss of their liberty.
|
Most people steal because they are poor and have few marketable skills.
It would be literally impossible for such people to repay their victims, let alone the costs of their trial and apprehension.
|
Most people who steal are able-bodied, and could easily perform simple factory work. They are indeed capable of providing substantial restitution to their victims.
Until 1980, Maine State's prison inmates were allowed to manufacture arts and crafts, making as much as $60,000 per year in today's dollars.1 Many companies currently employ inmates for telephone work, such as booking airline reservations.2
Working trains inmates to support themselves after release and gives them an alternative to crime. Restitution through productive work is highly successful rehabilitation.
1 Jeffrey Shedd, "Making Goods Behind Bars," Reason March 1982, pp. 23-32
2 James K. Stewart, letter to Wall Street Journal, July 26, 1989
|
Without taxes, where would the money come from to lock up the muderers and the rapists?
|
Ultimately, the money would come from the murderers and rapists themselves. Prisoners could work off their room and board in the prison or pay for it out of their own resources. Convicts who refused to work might have to depend upon the charity of others.
|
If the courts and police don't get full payment from an aggresor, who pays the bill?
|
The courts and police would probably write off bad debts, and factor them into their fees, just as businesses do today. Since the criminals pay these costs, you won't!
|
So the thief goes free, while the victim must wait years for compensation?
|
Not necessarily. Insured victims would be compensated immediately. The judgement against the thief would be collected by the insurance company instead. Of course, time payments are better than no payments at all, which is what most victims receive today.
|
What would happen if the thief dies before the victim is fully compensated? What happens if the judgement is so big that the thief cannot pay it, even if he or she works for a lifetime?
|
The victim will receive at least partial compensation, more than what he or she would receive today.
Today, victims are robbed twice. Not only are they robbed by the thief, but they are taxed by their government for apprehending and jailing the thief.
|
| Are Libertarians Anarchists? |
Short Answers |
What is the difference between anarchists and libertarians?
|
Some libertarians believe that government should handle the courts, police, and national defense; others believe that all the functions of government can be provided by the private sector.
|
| Economic Issues |
Short Answers |
I am curious about the libertarian viewpoint on collective bargaining and trade unions.
|
Libertarians believe that workers should be free to organize, bargain, and strike for better wages and conditions. Employers should also be free to hire new employees who are willing to work under existing wages and conditions. Each side is free to do as it pleases as long as they don't defraud, steal from, or assault each other.
Today, most employers are legally prevented from hiring new workers during the strike. Union violence is often ignored. Thus, unions have the edge in any negotiation and union wages are usually artificially high. Businesses on the edge go under and the disadvantaged workers lose their jobs to subsidize the union members.
|
Aren't monopolies a problem in a free market economy?
|
Monopolies are very rare in the free market, contrary to popular dogma. For example, Rockefeller's Standard Oil, gained 85% of the market for a couple of years, but found that the only way he could keep competitors from gaining ground was to maintain low prices. AT&T, on the other hand, asked the government to give them a monopoly to put their many competitors out of business. For all his greed, Rockefeller could only dominate the marketplace by giving the customer a good deal. Until the government reversed its policy on long distance service in 1984, AT&T was able to charge monopoly prices. Government intervention is usually necessary to make monopolies possible.
|
| Gun Control |
Short Answers |
How can libertarians be against gun control when the U.S. has so many murders?
|
We have too many rapes in the United States as well. Should we castrate all of our men to prevent it? Just as a potent man can be a rapist or a lover, so too can guns save lives or take them.
Fifty percent of murdered spouses are wife beaters killed in self defense.1 Without easy access to a gun, these women may have been killed.
1 Donald B. Kates, Jr., "Guns, Murder, and the Constitutuion: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control," (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990), p. 25.
|
| Military and National Defense |
Short Answers |
How would libertarians secure our national defense without taxes to fund a military?
|
Our best defense is to have no enemies. We turn enemies into friends by trading with them. Japan, the only nation to attack us in this century, bombed Pearl Harbor because of our oil embargo. Trading with Japan has made our economies too interdependent for them to even dream of another attack.
Libertarian military would probably be multi-layered and have several different sources of funding. Local militia might be volunteers or be supported by community fund-raising. Professional, full-time regiments might accept paid assignments in other countries as part of their training. The military might operate a business in peacetime that dovetails (excuse the pun!) with their defense function. Such efforts would likely be quite sufficient if we were not trying to police the world.
|
How would libertarians pay for the military?
|
Defense in a free society would probably be more diverse, both in the scope and funding, than in our current system. Troops sent overseas to protect oil interests, for example, would be hired by the oil companies, who would include this cost in their prices. Vietnam-type action would be funded by activists enthusiastic enough to pay for it and would wither if that support waned. People excited about a Star Wars defense might buy stock in the company that develops the system and makes money from scientific spinoffs (e.g., satellites). Career military could train in in combat and support themselves by selling their services to other countries on occasion. Volunteers could offer their time for clerical, training, or military duty.
|
During the Iran/Iraq war there were several French companies that sold them weapons. Russians were doing the same just before the Gulf War. Shouldn't we have government controls to prevent such things from happening?
|
Government controls enable these sales to be made in the first place! Saddam Hussein rose to power with taxpayer-guaranteed loans from several Western governments, including the U.S.1 In a very real sense, the money for the weapons came from us! Giving our government more power certainly won't solve the problems that they created in the first place!
In the name of national defense, our government arms terrorists such as Saddam, enforces embargoes that provoke attack (Pearl Harbor), and embroils us in other countries' civil wars (Nicaragua). The weapons companies are delighted to sell to the customers our government creates!
In a libertarian world, weapons dealers would sell little to dictators, since there would be no taxpayers to guarantee loans for that purpose.
1 Rachel Flick, "How We Appeased a Tyrant", Reader's Digest, January, 1991, pp. 39-44.
|
How would a libertarian society respond to a foreign request for military assistance?
|
Individuals in a libertarian society could respond as they wished. Pacifists could decline to contribute. Activists could raise money to pay for sending troops overseas. Young people could volunteer for military service in that country. Non-combatants could volunteer their time to help with the paperwork and training that accompanies any war effort. Everyone could give or decline to give as they wished. Instead of Congress deciding what the American people would contribute, each individual would decide for him or herself.
|
| Civil Rights |
Short Answers |
How does a libertarian address civil rights issues?
Would there be laws prohibiting discrimination by businesses?
|
In a libertarian society, businesses could refuse service to individuals for any reason. However, they would be punished by losing the profit that they otherwise would have made. This feedback is so powerful, that even in the post-Civil War South, segregation could only be maintained when governments made integration (serving blacks and whites in the same establishment) a crime.
If integration could only be stopped by outlawing it in the South, surely today it would take place readily without government mandates. If some individuals, black or white, wished to maintain some separateness, why should we force them together?
In a libertarian society, laws enforcing segregation could never have been passed in the first place. Slavery would never have been legal. In short, if the U.S. had been a totally libertarian society, Africans would never have been enslaved and given second-class status. Government creates conditions that foster racial prejudice, then creates backlash and further prejedice by forcing people together.
|
What laws would libertarians pass to get rid of all discrimination in this country?
|
Libertarians would get rid of the laws that are the hidden roots of discrimination. First, adoption would be privatized so that interracial adoption would no longer be discouraged. Today, many white families are not permitted to adopt a minority infant, and so go overseas to Korea or China instead. Historically, interracial adoption has been the quickest, most effective means of integration.
Black economist Walter Williams notes that "the minimum wage law is one of the major causes of spiraling unemployment among young blacks." Minimum wage laws would be abolished to end such discrimination.
Licensing laws, which were first put into place in the South to prohibit minorities from entering into the professions, would be ended.
Affirmative action and quotas employ a few token minorities while destroying the jobs of many more disadvantaged. In a libertarian nation, such laws would be abolished.
Discrimination will only end when we do away with laws that legalize it..
|
| Welfare and the Poor |
Short Answers |
Libertarians want to cut taxes for welfare. Don't you care if the poor starve?
|
I think the the poor deserve MORE than welfare -- they deserve the chance to become wealthy. History proves that only liberty -- not government handouts -- can give them that chance.
Seventy-five percent of our welfare dollars, enough for each family of four to receive $50,000 annually, go to the middle class social workers who administer these programs. On the other hand, 75% of each privately donated dollar goes to the needy! Anyone who advocates welfare taxes is lobbying for subsidies for the well to do.
Welfare breaks up families by paying teens to get pregnant and by paying mothers to desert the father of their children. Welfare is a major force in the destruction of family values in minority households.
|
Without government regulation, the gap between the rich and poor will widen. How can you call yourselves the "Party of Principal", and yet advocate this?
|
Countries with less government intervention are more propserous and have the most even distribution of wealth.3 That's why a libertarian society would have so few people in need of help. Let's get to the root cause of poverty and rip it out!
The poor fare better in free markets because entry into the workforce is easier. Many Europeans immigrated to the U.S. to escape the guilds and trade restrictions that kept them out of the labor market. Because the U.S. allowed its poor to work, it became the wealthiest nation on earth. Even the poor in the U.S. are better off than the middle-class of less affluent nations.
3. Thomas R. Dye and Harmon Zeigler, "Socialism and Equality in Cross-National Perspective," Political Science and Politics 21:45-58, 1988.
|
What makes you so sure that people would help the poor if they weren't forced to do so through taxation?
|
We needn't worry that people wouldn't help the unfortunate in a libertarian society. If you value volunteer labor at minimum wage, private organizations today still provide twice as much help as public ones, in spite of the high taxes for social services.
If people are willing to help the poor now, wouldn't they be ever more likely to give generously when they were taxed less?
|
How would the poor be educated in a libertarian society, when all schools are private?
|
In a libertarian society, the poor would not have to pay school taxes through their rent. This money could be used to send their children to private schools, which cost half as much as public ones, and would be even more economical without today's government regulation.
Today, the poor are forced into ghetto schools because their parents seldom have enough money to pay both property taxes and tuition. Because attendance is compulsory, troublemakers disrupt classes and learning is difficult.
Traditionally, the poor have been the strongest champions of choice programs, which force educators to teach well or go out of business. In Harlem, school choice increased the number of children reading at their grade level from 15% to 64% ! Such dramatic results show that the poor can learn when given a choice.
|
| The Environment |
Short Answers |
In a libertarian society, wouldn't polluters get away with destroying the environment?
|
Government polluters get away with murder... literally. 1 When courts found the military liable for illness and death after careless nuclear testing in Utah, the government claimed sovereign immunity and refused to pay damages. In a libertarian society, no one would be immune from the consequences of their actions... especially not a government charged with protecting us.
Libertarians believe that people and government should right their wrongs by restoring, as much as possible, what they've damaged. Today, our government makes the taxpayers or new owners shoulder the burden. If polluters don't pay for the damage they do, why should they stop polluting?
1 "Court Rules U.S. Not Liable in Deaths from Atom Tests," San Francisco Examiner, January 11, 1988, p. A-1.
|
|
|
