Damn Doc, sometimes you throw some real softballs...
And the interstate highway system?
Was a national transportation system devised for the rapid movement & support of domestic military. Much like the German Autobaun. It was
never about improving the transit options of citizens, that was just a side effect during peacetime. As a sidenote, there was, and remains, a rule of the construction of new interstate highways that roughly one mile every five is supposed to be straight & without obstructions (overpasses, over arching signage, concrete barriers on the sides, etc) so that sections of the interstate can actually be used as aircraft runways for smaller craft, such as the type of combat aircraft typical during the 1950's.
In short, the interstate highway system is an extension of the military authority of the federal government, which libertarians typically do not object to.
If your idea was roads in general, as in the classic "who will build the roads?" complaint about libertarian thought, the answer is the same people who build them now. Governments don't build the roads, private contractors do this, everywhere in the country. The difference is about who will
fund the construction and maintenance of those roads. The answer to that question is, it depends. And there are too many possibility to actually name them all. And yes, there are many examples of privately funded and maintained roads and highways; both of historic interest, as well as contemporary examples. One such example of how to fund road construction is similar to how we fund the construction of other shared infrastructure, such as water companies. Since these are very mature infrastructure technologies, and thus very boring investments, these projects are typically funded by bonds with additional features to the bondholder. Currently, that means municipal bonds, that are tax free for in state residents. Other possible 'local' incentives could be a rate discount for bondholders, direct convertability (a bondholder could directly pay their water bills without selling them on the bond market first, I can't think of a private road equivalent here.)
Our constitution?
This one is strange, because yes, the US Constitution is a direct result of a temporary dominance of classical liberal (libertarian) philosophy. It's provablely true that the framers of the US Constitution were trying to establish a republic with just large enough of a government to prevent the interstate bickering that had already occurred under the Articles of Confederation, and not much more. There is a
huge body of evidence to support this view.
Medicare?
Socialized medicine is, by definition, not a product of a free market; no. What is your point here? That Medicare is a net positive for society? Maybe, maybe not. It is certainly a net positive for those who live past 65. It is, and always has been, beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government, though. Whether or not we have an obligation to support our elders is a question that libertarian cannot answer, but we have known since the 1700's that is a burden for the states individually to manage, not the federal level. Ironically, there was a recent episode of Freakonomics Radio (oct 7th) that directly addressed this very question. It's a great episode, and I assigned listening to it to my students.
Public schools?
This one is easy. There was no such thing as a public school in the United States prior to 1895, at least not 'public' in the sense that it was funded by taxes with compulsory attendance of students. And such a public school system was not nationwide until the 1930's, and the federal department of education was, what? 1970's? So, no; universal education is not a requirement to a well educated population, nor a successful nation. The US became a world superpower (not really a good thing, mind you, but an example of success compared to other nations and populations) with a workforce with a median separation grade level of about 8th grade. A formal educational environment is far from the most common, historically speaking. College used to be an exclusive learning environment, filtering for the most meritorious among our population. There are much more "educated" populations around the world, many of which have been besting the US public school system for decades on many metrics. Some of them are public school systems, some are private school systems. There is little evidence that universal education is even a
desirable goal for a society, much less an actually achievable one; but there is plenty of evidence that a completely private system of education would do no worse than a publicly funded one.
The military?
National defense is a enumerated function and power of government, so they can establish & maintain a standing army if they choose to do so. However, that is certainly not how it's always been, and not the only way to do it. The US 'milita' system is modeled after the Swiss militia system; and as a matter of law, every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 45 are members of the "unregulated militia". This is exactly where the legal basis of the draft & selective service comes from. We libertarians don't like it, but most of us accept it.
[/quote]
Anti trust legislation? The laws that allow for your proposed class action law suits? The NIH? The military?
[/quote]
???
Were these all products of the free market system, or did government play a crucial role in their formation?
Yes. Both. As I have already mentioned, governments are reactionary. At best, they are responding to issues already recognized by the populations. At best.
This demonization of government is too simplistic by much. Government can be both too big and too small. It can accomplish great things, and can get in the way. Taxes can be too high and too low. The social safety net can be to generous and not generous enough. Regulations can be too strong and too weak.
All of this is easy to agree with.
The natural progression of a free market is monopoly and concentration of power.
Nope. There is no example of a persistent, natural monopoly. Not one, ever. Feel free to try to disprove this, but every single actual
persistant monopoly in history was established by, and maintained by, the force of government. If you think you have found one, mention it, and I will point out how artificial government support either established, maintained, or both; any such monopoly.
And once fully formed the only way to turn those counterproductive forces back is with incremental legislation/legislation/regulation or violent revolution.
I prefer the former.
In practice, however, you indirectly support the latter. The sad part is that you don't know it, can't accept it, and are likely offended by the accusation.
Poll
