More libertarians have been weighing in on the firehouse issue; see Gary Chartier, Art Carden, Tom Knapp, Bob Murphy, and Kevin Carson.
(I’ll reply to Tom’s, and others’, criticisms after I get back from Libertopia, where I’m headed tomorrow.)
In other news, Libérale et Libertaire explains what libertarians should say when asked about the Civil Rights Act.
Stephan Kinsella has started a new anti-IP outfit called the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom. The Advisory Board includes Michele Boldrin, Julio Cole, Karl Fogel, David Koepsell, David Levine, Wendy McElroy, Nina Paley, Jeff Tucker, and your humble correspondent. Here’s our mission statement:
The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF) is dedicated to building public awareness of the manner in which laws and policies impede innovation, creativity, communication, learning, knowledge, emulation, and information sharing. We are for property rights, free markets, competition, commerce, cooperation, and the voluntary sharing of knowledge, and oppose laws that systematically impede or hamper innovation, especially those enforced in the name of defending “intellectual property,” such as patent and copyright; these should be radically reformed or entirely abolished.
We provide news commentary and analysis and scholarly resources from our unique pro-property, pro-market, pro-innovation perspective.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed!
Also check out our cool logo (designed by Stephanie Long – no relation AFAIK). “The bird … symbolizes freedom, while the origami aspect symbolizes man-made creativity”:
And if you copy it we will totally sue your ass.
Yet another reason the FBI needs to be abolished and its personnel systematically investigated and prosecuted:
We’re here to recover the device you found on your vehicle. It’s federal property. It’s an expensive piece, and we need it right now. …
We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate. …
You don’t need to call your lawyer.
The victim probably should have gotten legal advice before relinquishing the device (evidence!), but given the pressure he was under it’s hard to blame him.
Leaked evidence suggests that an upcoming episode of Doctor Who will be shot in the u.s.
But that’s not the possible spoiler. The possible spoiler, if actual, is fairly big, so I’m consigning it to the comments section. Proceed at your peril.
SPOILER WARNING:
A recent spectacular example of government failure – namely, a government fire company’s refusing to put out a nonpayer’s fire– has been transformed, through the magic of non sequitur, into a criticism of libertarianism. That last charge is too silly to comment on, but the case does raise some interesting libertarian issues. I venture some tentative answers:
1. Should a fire company be legally required to put out the fires of nonpayers?
In a free market, the answer is obviously no. In an oligopolistic market where the company is the beneficiary of artificial restrictions on competition – or, as in the recent case, is an actual government monopoly – the case for yes grows a lot stronger.
2. Would a fire company have an (unenforceable) moral obligation to put out a nonpayer’s fire in a case like this recent one?
I lean toward saying yes – especially once they’d arrived, and especially given that there were pets in the house. Obviously still more so if there’d been children in the house. We have positive obligations to our neighbours as well as negative ones, even if the positive ones aren’t legitimately enforceable (other than through shaming).
3. Wouldn’t it be economically unfeasible to fight fires of nonpayers, inasmuch as letting the house burn down would serve as a warning to other nonpayers?
Seeing a nonpayer forced to pay full price for having their house saved seems like sufficient incentive.
4. Would this recent event be likely to happen in a competitive market?
I think not. Company A says “sorry, we won’t put out your fire, even though you’re now offering to pay the full amount.” What’s your natural response if you’re Company B? (Note that the existence of private fire companies does not by itself guarantee a competitive market; I suspect most private fire companies historically operated in an oligopolistic context.)
5. What if a nonpayer can’t afford to pay full price? Is there any economic incentive to save her house then?
Sure. Letting nonpayers’ houses burn is the kind of bad publicity a rival would benefit from exploiting.
6. What if a nonpayer can afford to pay full price but is out of town and can’t consent to it, so the fire company saves her house anyway. Can they force her to pay?
I’d say no. But reputation effects apply to customers too.