[JanezStupar]

> This touches on one glaring problem with libertarian utopia. Their replacement for the evil gubmint is a host of other bureaucracies (giant consumer groups, a bunch of non-profits doing testing, insurance for everything, etc.) that presumably will have many of the same pathologies as the gubmint.

Which is kind of the point. Institutions can be functional or disfunctional. The only way to prevent disfunctional institutions bogging down the government is by not having the government run them in the first place.

The easiest way to deal with a dysfunctional institutions is by letting them die. Which is a lot easier when government is not involved.

Last but not least, there is also the element of freedom. One cannot opt-out of government and its institutions - without having to move or worse. While as proposed above - the possibility of opting out of institutions - is necessary for having any hope of not being stuck with corrupt institutions.

[Spooky23]

So, if government didn't do anything, it would be functional, but only because private actors would stand in and provide incompetent bureaucrats or self-interested bureaucratsof their own?

[JanezStupar]

I don't give a damn if Oracle is stupid, incompetent, malicious or all of the above. I decided to have no business with Oracle and they have no way of forcing me into a relationship with it.

If, however - Oracle were a government institution - then it could leverage its monopoly over violence to get me to do its bidding - regardless of what I thought of its services.

And as one goes through history, one notices that most if not all of the institutions that governments provide - have started outside of government, yet have been included into the scope of government. Either because the ruling party at the time saw it as a means of expanding their reach OR because people have observed that it would be cheaper/more effective to run these institutions "collectively" - where the state pops up immediately as an endeavor that is already done for the "good of all".

Unfortunately - no institution is ideal. And as we have seen time and again through history, all institutions succumb to corruption eventually. And being stuck with corrupt institutions is no fun at all.

I have no idea, how you maligned my argument into the garbage you presented. But I would argue, that you are actually presenting an excellent case for striving towards preventing dishonest people such as yourself from getting power over others. Thus while you undoubtedly think yourself an edgy cynic - you are merely solidifying my point.

[Spooky23]

Unless your branch of libertarianism also gets rid of contracts, there are many scenarios where contracts between parties can and will affect you, and without the ability to petition the government for redress, you are screwed. Private parties are generally motivated by their own private interest -- we have democratic government at different levels to represent the interests of the people.

This kind of stuff happens every day between property owners. That's why we have things like zoning, permitting and environmental regulation. Nobody wants government intervention until their neighbor puts up a big ugly fence.

In my personal experience, I've been in disputes with government bureaucracy, and was able to get a reasonable resolution because we have elected representatives who care about constituent issues. I've also been party to disputes with large corporate bureaucracies, and your ability to push the needle as an individual is very limited.

If characterizing me as dishonest makes you feel good, go for it. But I'd return the favor by saying that like most libertarians, your position reflects an immature, self-centered and unsophisticated understanding of the world and how it works. I encourage you to take a few hours and study the history of how the negative outcomes of industrialization in 19th century America re-shaped societies thinking about regulation and property rights.

[JanezStupar]

I have put forth an argument. It may be a bad argument, but it is the best argument I have.

In response - your first post was snark and condescension. Now you are doubling down with vague anecdotes and sending me to "go educate myself".

How about showing some good will and trying to present a honest critique or counter argument in 1-3 sentences.

I accept that you are morally and intellectually superior - no need to exert yourself asserting your dominance. Now put up, please.

[riskable]

It's funny how you worded this because, "letting them die" is basically how an anti-Libertarian would sum up libertarianism.

[JanezStupar]

Yes, that is what dishonest, ax grinding anti-libertarians do constantly.