Replies

The problem with the radical libertarian vision is that it does not deal effectively with a wide range of issues that require collective and coercive action: roads, courts, national defense, and police and fire services; natural monopolies and enterprises that require the aid of eminent domain and other types of state power; and pollution and other forms of trespass and nuisance in which the damages are widely distributed and even most businessmen prefer to be regulated by the government than subject to endless private litigation from all comers.

Libertarian visionaries see these things as the cancerous seeds tumors of socialism and often propose ways to eliminate them, but seldom are their measures practical. The best prospect for libertarian reform is for businessmen and economists to make a sound case for a free market solution on the particulars. That seems to be happening with public education, as charter schools, vouchers, and other school choice measures gain ground. Airline and communications deregulation are also successes.

If I had to name a single prime source for my political philosophy, it would be Federalist No. 10, with its unapologetic realism about human nature and the faults of democracy ("popular government"). The answer it advocated -- the system of checks and balances and distributed power in the Constitution -- has worked better and for a longer period of time than anything else.

The answer it advocated -- the system of checks and balances and distributed power in the Constitution -- has worked better and for a longer period of time than anything else.

What collosal arrogance we have.

Worked for a longer time than anything else?? The US Constitution is a scant 216 years old give or take, the Holy Roman Empire stood for nearly 900 years (if you exclude Charlemange and the Autrian-Hungarian Empire which would make it more like 1200 years), about 600 of those years under the guidance of Hapsburgs.

Saxon dynasty

Otto I, 936–73

Otto II, 973–83

Otto III, 983–1002

Henry II, 1002–24

Salian or Franconian dynasty

Conrad II, 1024–39

Henry III, 1039–56

Henry IV, 1056–1105

Henry V, 1105–25

Lothair II, duke of Saxony, 1125–37

Hohenstaufen dynasty and rivals

Conrad III, 1138–52

Frederick I, 1152–90

Henry VI, 1190–97

Philip of Swabia, 1198–1208

antiking: Otto IV (Guelph), 1198–1208

Otto IV (king, 1208–12; emperor, 1209–15), 1208–15

Frederick II (king, 1212–20; emperor, 1220–50), 1212–50

Conrad IV, 1237–54

antiking: Henry Raspe, 1246–47

antiking: William, count of Holland, 1247–56

Interregnum, 1254–73

Richard, earl of Cornwall, and Alfonso X of Castile, rivals

Hapsburg, Luxemburg, and other dynasties

Rudolf I (Hapsburg), 1273–91

Adolf of Nassau, 1292–98

Albert I (Hapsburg), 1298–1308

Henry VII (Luxemburg), 1308–13

Louis IV (Wittelsbach), 1314–46

Charles IV (Luxemburg), 1346–78

Wenceslaus (Luxemburg), 1378–1400

Rupert (Wittelsbach), 1400–1410

Sigismund (Luxemburg), 1410–37

Hapsburg dynasty

Albert II, 1438–39

Frederick III, 1440–93

Maximilian I, 1493–1519

Charles V, 1519–58

Ferdinand I, 1558–64

Maximilian II, 1564–76

Rudolf II, 1576–1612

Matthias, 1612–19

Ferdinand II, 1619–37

Ferdinand III, 1637–57

Leopold I, 1658–1705

Joseph I, 1705–11

Charles VI, 1711–40

Interregnum (1740–42) and other dynasties

Charles VII (Wittelsbach-Hapsburg), 1742–45

Francis I (Lorraine), 1745–65

Hapsburg-Lorraine dynasty

Joseph II, 1765–90

Leopold II, 1790–92

Francis II, 1792–1806

The problem with the radical libertarian vision is that it does not deal effectively with a wide range of issues that require collective and coercive action: roads, courts, national defense, and police and fire services... and pollution and other forms of trespass and nuisance in which the damages are widely distributed

I don't know where you get your information from. The radical libertarian vision has more than quite effectively dealt with all to the above. When the debates pretty much stopped within the libertarian movement back in 1984, the problem they had was in selecting which among several visions they had. The problems then were not that they couldn't deal with the issues, it was in selecting which vision was to be endorsed, or further developed.

The problem with the radical libertarian vision is that it does not deal effectively with... natural monopolies and enterprises that require the aid of eminent domain and other types of state power...

You are quite right here, except that natural monopolies have never occurred. Monopolies only occur where government actions or inactions bring them into existence. Your entire notion of enterprises in need of eminent domain is at best a strawman argument, as such enterprises either are not in need of such, or we all would be better off with out them.

You are quite right however that "most businessmen prefer to be regulated by the government," but not because of a fear of being subjected "to endless private litigation from all comers." They like being regulated because it keeps competition down and prices up. As far as endless litigation goes, it was argued quite often among libertarians that certain libertarian scenarios would lead to a litigation society. But such visions have been quite effectively challenged. The only problem with the libertarian vision is that the Libertarian Party and much of the movement stopped developing twenty years ago its infant vision to early. It was still in need of much refinement as it still is today and always will be.

Your notion that libertarian "measures" are "seldom... practical" I find quite comical. Such meaningless relativistic statements can be said about any political theory to include the one that is currently in practice now. Of course such a statement should be expected from one who considers the Federalist No.10 a "prime source" of "political philosophy."