Very Basic Utilitarian Libertarianism

So this is mostly a continuation of the previous discussion on Natural Rights libertarianism... Many people have asked me (usually with some anger?) how a system could possibly work without taxes. The natural rights argument doesn't really address this question, but it shouldn't have to because the question isn't related to the argument at all.

In this post I will attempt to use utilitarianism to explain how a political system could work without taxes, aggressive war, or conscription.

The word utilitarianism is a structure of beliefs or ideas built around the idea of maximizing utility. Utility generally means happiness. Most economics teachers would agree to this definition. Maximizing utility could also mean something like... the maximum amount of uneasiness removed. The two meanings are similar, but happiness seems slightly less definitive to me.

A libertarian utilitarian generally believes that the maximization of utility for a society would be accomplished by the removal of government.

Basically, the argument is based on the success of the free market. If enough people want something or if a single person wants something badly enough, then they or he will get it through the market. If enough people want green shoes, then someone will start a shoe company to make green shoes or a currently existing shoe company will start to manufacture green shoes. The same goes for the various operations of government according to this line of argument.

If a large number of individuals demand something like security (a police force for example) on the market, then various methods of security will arise through various entrepreneurs attempting to profit from other peoples desires.

David Friedman and Murray Rothbard in their books, The Machinery of Freedom: A guide to radical capitalism and For a new liberty: the libertarian manifesto, respectively, lay out basically the same ideas for the road to utilitarian libertarianism or anarchy. I don't have The Machinery of Freedom available to me right now, but Friedman says there are things that we can do today and things that we can do in the future to take the state apart. It must be done in a certain order for the system to work most efficiently, he argues.

If I remember correctly, he first says that we should sell off the public roads and schools. I think I should pause here before proceeding with what order to do things or explaining exactly how the system would run to put up an argument for a private road and school system...

These two areas are some of the hardest to defend for a utilitarian libertarian. There was a highway built in LA a while ago, a private one that cut a more direct path for travelers to wherever it was going and saved them time (highway 73). I think when it came out the toll was like $8 per trip. The price is high, but the road boasted a toll system that you could drive through at 70 miles per hour without stopping. No other system like this exists in the country, to my knowledge anyway, and there are a lot of toll systems back east. The owners of the road set up cameras along the whole length of the road and if there was an accident or some kind of breakdown, they knew about it immediately and sent crews out to clean it up to keep traffic moving and the money coming in. No road system that I know of can respond this fast. They gave away a free gallon of gas to people that ran out because it was inefficient for them to leave the car on the side of the road with the possibility of impeding traffic. The enormous amount of traffic and the social costs associated with it would be minimized by having a private road system.

Concerning education: Most people, liberals anyway, seem to think that the public school system in America is in horrible condition. Would a private system of schools fix the problems or just leave some people uneducated and be generally worse for society? Imagine what would happen if there were no public school system. First, people wouldn't be forced to pay for public schooling through taxes. Various private schools would arise serving whatever desires that the market demanded. Some parents would demand high quality education and be more willing to pay for it for their children than they were previously. Some poorer families that couldn't afford to send their children to a very high quality expensive school would have the option available to them to send their child to some sort of shorter-term trade school if they wanted. Schools would compete with each other for students. In every case where free competition exists in a free market, prices drop. New methods of education would be attempted and new ideas would surface, allowing for more efficient education of everyone. Public schools have virtually no one to compete with and therefore have very little incentive to innovate. Basically, if schools were privatized, then a larger variety of education would come into existence and overall prices of education would fall because of competition.

Friedman and Rothbard both go on to explain how a market based police force, court system, and perhaps even military could not only exist but also be more efficient on the free market than the way it currently is. Where the argument is now though, without public education or public roads, is where many minimal-state libertarians draw the line. Most also believe that there should be a much smaller military as well...

I'll make another post on how a police force, court system, and maybe a military could be provided on the market.

This argument isn't as solid as the natural rights one, so feel free to nail me somewhere and I'll argue about it.