Since roads today are not privately owned, should we call for laws against drunk driving?

Answer:

My personal belief is that these laws do more harm than good. Instead, I’d prefer to see reckless or careless drivers pulled off the road, whether they are under the influence of alcohol, drugs, sleep loss, medication, or emotions that distract them from safe driving. The libertarian philosophy permits defensive measures when force is threatened (e.g., you can defend yourself against me if I point a gun at you but haven’t fired yet). Reckless driving could qualify as the threat of force.

How absolute are my property rights in a libertarian system?

For example: I install a fish pond in my yard and stock it with trout. A corporation builds a coal-fired power plant 100 miles from my house. Because of their activity, traces of mercury show up in my fish. Do my property rights include the right not to have my land contaminated with poison?

Answer:

Yes. You always have recourse if a person harms your property. If someone dumps garbage on your lawn or mercury into your pond, you have the right to: 1) full restoration of your property; or 2) a settlement acceptable to you.

Would a libertarian society have speed limits?

Answer:

In a fully libertarian world, roads would be owned and operated privately, not by the government. Road owners would decide what speed limits (if any) would be set. Some might have no restrictions, like the European Autobahn.Others might have strict limits.Since safe travel is important to drivers, owners would most likely monitor and ban reckless drivers (slow or fast) from their roadways. The marketplace would thereby impose “regulation” of its own, with emphasis on *safety* rather than *speed*.

In a libertarian society, wouldn’t polluters get away with destroying the environment?

Answer:

Today, the biggest polluter of all — the U.S. military — gets away with murder — literally. 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 governments should right their wrongs by restoring, as much as possible, what they’ve damaged. Today, instead of making polluters pay, our government makes the taxpayers shoulder the burden. Sometimes it requires whoever buys a polluted property to bear the cost of the clean-up. If polluters don’t pay for the damage they do, why should they stop polluting?

Since government is the biggest polluter of all, putting government in charge of stopping pollution is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

How would the handicapped fare in a libertarian society?

Answer:

The handicapped would be less so in a free society. Without regulation, medical advances would skyrocket, giving these people new hope. Because of these advances, fewer of the handicapped would be disabled. The few still in need would receive more help than they do today, because society would be wealthier and fewer people would be poor.

Today, the private sector contributes two-thirds of all the charitable dollars, even if you value volunteer time at minimum wage only. If people give so generously when an average of 50% of their earnings go to taxes, they will certainly contribute much more when their tax burden is reduced.

If you don’t like it here in the US, why don’t you leave?

Answer:

I love the principles of freedom and individual rights that this country was founded upon. I want to help the US return to the ideals that made her great.

If business is not regulated, wouldn’t the environment be destroyed?

Answer:

Our greatest polluter is the US Military, not corporate America. Putting government in charge of protecting the environment is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The most polluted countries in the world are those where government has total control of the environment, such as Eastern Europe. Government is just as dangerous to our environment as it is to the wealth of our nation — it is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.

If your neighbor dumps garbage on your lawn, he or she should clean it up and compensate you for any damages. Similarly, if a business or government agency causes harm, they should make it right again. Today, restitution rarely happens. Businesses pay fines to the government, not to the victim; government polluters simply claim sovereign immunity and walk away. Regulation isn’t working — we need to replace it with *restitution.*

Government’s duty is to protect our persons and our property from those who would harm us. Regulation is an attempt to prevent harm, but it’s extremely costly. Although most businesses must obey the regulations, government agencies do not, making regulation inefficient. If government focused on making ALL polluters right their wrongs, businesses, individuals, and public officials would make cost-effective behavioral changes. We’d get more environmental protection for less!

Extra tip: One of the functions of a limited government is to protect property rights via *restitution.* Regulation does more harm than good by shifting resources away from victims and towards policing. Arguing that restitution, as both a preventive and curative, should be substituted for regulation is generally more reassuring to people than saying that government has no role — and is accurate from a libertarian standpoint of government limited to protection of people and property.

Assume that a “laissez faire” economy would approximate the assumptions of classical economics. Classical economics tells us that in the long run wages will stabilize at subsistence levels. Is it fair to ask workers to labor for subsistence wages?

Answer:

Just the opposite is true. In a free economy, wages increase, so few workers stay at the lower rung of the economic ladder. That’s why U.S. workers have such high wages compared to the rest of the world. That’s why 90% of our work force makes more than minimum wage, even though no law requires employers to pay more.

(For a more detailed understanding of this subject, see my book Healing Our World, chapters 2-4.)

James Carville was quoted claiming that government has reduced poverty among the U.S. elderly from 28.5% to 2% (presumably through Social Security, Medicare, etc.), indicating that government does have its successes. What is a libertarian’s reply?

Answer:

It’s difficult to answer this question in detail without knowing what Carville meant by “poverty.” However, the following should suffice:

As a group, the elderly are indeed wealthier than their middle-aged children in terms of assets, usually due to pension funds from their employer and equity build-up in their homes. The marketplace, not government programs for seniors, is responsible for this accumulation of wealth.

What, succinctly, is the job of government?

Answer:

Government, if it has a role, is to bring justice to victims of physical force or fraud.

A libertarian-style government would therefore limit itself to a police, court, prison system and military. These institutions would deter crime more effectively than today’s system by assuring that criminals paid restitution to their victims.