PDA

View Full Version : Libertarians Are Pussies



Chris
02-23-2013, 09:37 AM
Pardon the French, they're not my words, but those of harpy Ann Coulter, who said it on Stossel: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2181705492001/.

Here's a rebuttal:


The segment with Ann Coulter is above; click to watch. I enjoy Ann Coulter's rants, perhaps especially when she is trying to antagonize libertarians. In the above click, she does so most emphatically around the 1.55-minute mark, when she calls libertarians pussies (there's a long bleep there, thanks to the worrywarts at Fox Business). Oddly, La Coulter's slagging is occasioned not by libertarians' non-interventionist chops but by...our stance on the drug war.

"Libertarians and pot!" says an exasperated Coulter. "This is why people think libertarians are pussies. We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist. The government is taking 60 percent of your money. They're taking care of your health care, of your pensions, they're telling you who you can hire, what the regulations are gonna be...and you want to suck to your little liberal friends and say, 'Oh, we want to legalize pot. You know, if you were a little more manly, you'd tell the liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."

...It may not have the rhetorical power of "I'm Spartacus!" but I'm happy to declare "I'm a pussy!" That is, if being in favor of pot legalization, a restrained foreign policy, marriage equality, non-mandatory health care, voluntary association in the workplace, open borders, and other libertarian positions means being a pussy.

And you, gentle readers of whatever sex and whatever disposition: Are you pussies, too? Here's hoping.

@ Ann Coulter: Libertarians Are Pussies (http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/22/ann-coulter-libertarians-are-pussies)

Some may recall Russel Kir's Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries (http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf) (.PDF).

Conley
02-23-2013, 12:07 PM
I feel like Ann will say anything shocking just to try to get in the news. She's an expert in what some of you guys on here call "Trolling" :laugh:

Mister D
02-23-2013, 12:58 PM
In fairness to Ann, how often do libertarians bring up their position on employment discrimination or discrimination generally? I remember the firestorm over Rand Paul's comments regarding the Civil Rights Act.

Chris
02-23-2013, 01:25 PM
She does have a point, some libertarians are libertines. That, too, was Kirk Russell's plaint. IOW, some look at freedom the way many liberals do, as an escape from responsibility.

KC
02-23-2013, 01:31 PM
When I saw the title of this thread I thought Chris was going neo-con on us :laugh:

Chris
02-23-2013, 01:34 PM
I'd have to turn myself insideout and upsidedown, Katherine.

KC
02-23-2013, 01:40 PM
I'd have to turn myself insideout and upsidedown, Katherine.

Whoops. Guess I was being a bimbo again!

Conley
02-23-2013, 02:10 PM
In fairness to Ann, how often do libertarians bring up their position on employment discrimination or discrimination generally? I remember the firestorm over Rand Paul's comments regarding the Civil Rights Act.

That's a fair point -- it's just her delivery that I find fault with. Hard for me personally to take someone seriously when they make such outrageous statements, but it gets people talking about her which is her goal IMO

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 02:25 PM
This is an example of why I don't appreciate Ann. Her style can only appeal to people who agree with her. If she adopted a calmer tone she could move people toward the right. That, and she is too much of a NEOCON.

It is good to see such a large audience of libertarians.

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 02:27 PM
Listening more: Ann does make a good point about why we should care about people smoking pot-- we live in a welfare state. So we pay for it.

She does admit that if we ended our welfare state, she would not care what people did.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 02:33 PM
This is an example of why I don't appreciate Ann. Her style can only appeal to people who agree with her. If she adopted a calmer tone she could move people toward the right. That, and she is too much of a NEOCON.

It is good to see such a large audience of libertarians.

But that isn't newsworthy. As pointed out previously in this thread, she is basically a professional troll.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 02:57 PM
That's a fair point -- it's just her delivery that I find fault with. Hard for me personally to take someone seriously when they make such outrageous statements, but it gets people talking about her which is her goal IMO

That's the climate we live, unfortunately. You have to be obnoxious for anyone to listen. That doesn't excuse her. I'm just putting it in perspective.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 02:57 PM
There is something about Stossel that annoys me but I can't quite place it.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 03:02 PM
There is something about Stossel that annoys me but I can't quite place it.

Has to be the mustache. I mean really - are we living in the 80s?

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 03:05 PM
Has to be the mustache. I mean really - are we living in the 80s?

It does look creepy.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 03:07 PM
It does look creepy.

Just a touch...

JackRuby
02-23-2013, 03:14 PM
Please, keep the "clubs" inside jokes going and don't veer back to the original OP!

Chris
02-23-2013, 04:12 PM
Has to be the mustache. I mean really - are we living in the 80s?

When did Ann Coulter grow a mustache? :shocked:


What bothers me about Stossel is he's too lightweight. He makes good points, backs them with facts, but there's no overarching theory, no philosophy behind it.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 05:45 PM
When did Ann Coulter grow a mustache? :shocked:


What bothers me about Stossel is he's too lightweight. He makes good points, backs them with facts, but there's no overarching theory, no philosophy behind it.

You can't expect much with that format.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 05:46 PM
I still find libertarianism to be disagreeable but I have exposed to several libertarians whose views I can sympathize with to some extent.

KC
02-23-2013, 06:00 PM
I still find libertarianism to be disagreeable but I have exposed to several libertarians whose views I can sympathize with to some extent.

The great thing about political view points is they are very rarely black and white. We can measure them by attitudes related to how much state involvement, but it's a continuum, not fixed labels.


So there can be a lot of variation, and there are going to be some "libertarians" who you and others may find are very agreeable, others not so much.

Mainecoons
02-23-2013, 06:09 PM
People who still labor under the illusion that government can fix anything and everything from poverty to moral turpitude don't care much for libertarians.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 06:19 PM
The great thing about political view points is they are very rarely black and white. We can measure them by attitudes related to how much state involvement, but it's a continuum, not fixed labels.


So there can be a lot of variation, and there are going to be some "libertarians" who you and others may find are very agreeable, others not so much.

I like John Derbyshire, for example. He was the only reason I continued to subscribe to National Review after my views began to harden around age 30. Hoppe is interesting as well. Rothbard too.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 06:30 PM
People who still labor under the illusion that government can fix anything and everything from poverty to moral turpitude don't care much for libertarians.

That's not true. I'm one of the furthest left members and I have a respect for Libertarianism that I do not necessarily have or have as much of for Democrats or Republicans.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 06:33 PM
That's not true. I'm one of the furthest left members and I have a respect for Libertarianism that I do not necessarily have or have as much of for Democrats or Republicans.

What about conservatives and liberals? That would be a better comparison. I think most of the libertarians here are small "l" libertarians meaning they are not members or even likely voters for the :Libertarian Party.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 06:39 PM
What about conservatives and liberals? That would be a better comparison. I think most of the libertarians here are small "l" libertarians meaning they are not members or even likely voters for the :Libertarian Party.

I have respect for anyone who can form an opinion based on logic, reason and integrity and argue/fight for it without being blatantly stubborn, foolish or partisan, (so a willingness to learn and to cooperate). So, depends on the Conservatives and Liberals. Democrats and Republicans, or at least the rank and file ones, don't fall into that category. They might have historically been relevant, but in their form today they are both utterly useless and harming the US and its interests.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 06:41 PM
I have respect for anyone who can form an opinion based on logic, reason and integrity and argue/fight for it without being blatantly stubborn, foolish or partisan, (so a willingness to learn and to cooperate). So, depends on the Conservatives and Liberals. Democrats and Republicans, or at least the rank and file ones, don't fall into that category. They might have historically been relevant, but in their form today they are both utterly useless and harming the US and its interests.

I've noticed how partisanship tends to override ideology It's incredible and sad.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 06:45 PM
I've noticed how partisanship tends to override ideology It's incredible and sad.

Yeah - as an outsider, I have a hard time not being disgusted with the level of partisanship. Sure, we have our own problems, but the US has taken it to such a level. A dangerous level, really. Party before the people.

KC
02-23-2013, 06:49 PM
Yeah - as an outsider, I have a hard time not being disgusted with the level of partisanship. Sure, we have our own problems, but the US has taken it to such a level. A dangerous level, really. Party before the people.

Is it different anywhere else? That's one of my operating assumptions when I'm thinking about politics.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 06:52 PM
Is it different anywhere else? That's one of my operating assumptions when I'm thinking about politics.

Party before ideas that's for sure. I think that is relatively recent though. Perhaps a product of 24/7 news and the decreasing differences between the major parties.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 06:53 PM
Party affiliation actually meant something in terms of worldview in the past. Now not so much. I thin that could be at the root of the problem.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 07:05 PM
Is it different anywhere else? That's one of my operating assumptions when I'm thinking about politics.

Most Canadians don't vote the same way or go into an election with a solid idea on who they will vote for. I'm a die-hard Liberal and I'll likely vote NDP provincially in the next election, perhaps even federally unless the Liberals are able to put a good candidate forward for leader, (Trudeau gets my vote for pure coolness, and legitimate reasons). I've also debated about voting Conservative federally. In the last election, the Bloc Quebecois were pretty much eliminated from something like 40 seats to 4, losing major party status, while the NDP became the official opposition for the first time in history (beating the Liberals out for the first time in history). People vote for whomever based on the arguments made. Very few people are life-long supporters of the same party. As time passes and politics change, people shift around quite a bit.

Unfortunately... our neighbours have somewhat influenced us. For example, negative ad campaigns. We didn't have much of those until very recently, and are an import from the US. I read an article about it after 2008.

Mainecoons
02-23-2013, 07:05 PM
That's not true. I'm one of the furthest left members and I have a respect for Libertarianism that I do not necessarily have or have as much of for Democrats or Republicans.

It is true as leftists are the most deluded when it comes to believing that government can cure all ills.

Sorry about that. :grin:

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 07:06 PM
It is true as leftists are the most deluded when it comes to believing that government can cure all ills.

Sorry about that. :grin:

Not all.

KC
02-23-2013, 07:07 PM
Most Canadians don't vote the same way or go into an election with a solid idea on who they will vote for. I'm a die-hard Liberal and I'll likely vote NDP provincially in the next election, perhaps even federally unless the Liberals are able to put a good candidate forward for leader, (Trudeau gets my vote for pure coolness, and legitimate reasons). I've also debated about voting Conservative federally. In the last election, the Bloc Quebecois were pretty much eliminated from something like 40 seats to 4, losing major party status, while the NDP became the official opposition for the first time in history (beating the Liberals out for the first time in history). People vote for whomever based on the arguments made. Very few people are life-long supporters of the same party. As time passes and politics change, people shift around quite a bit.

Unfortunately... our neighbours have somewhat influenced us. For example, negative ad campaigns. We didn't have much of those until very recently, and are an import from the US. I read an article about it after 2008.

Wow... sorry about that. I'd say that's even worse than that time we tried to conquer you guys.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 07:08 PM
Wow... sorry about that. I'd say that's even worse than that time we tried to conquer you guys.

Nah. That would be your beer.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 07:08 PM
That was low...

Mainecoons
02-23-2013, 07:09 PM
Then you aren't a leftist.

The absolute core of leftism/socialism/progressivism is the use of government to cure all social ills. And to direct the economy because they are smarter than the natural workings of human nature and markets. Which of course is total nonsense and has been disproven time and time and time again.

Leftists simply don't learn from the mistakes and failures of their ideas. When confronted with failure, they double down on it.

Libertarians simply know better because we understand and use empirical reasoning and proof. Real leftists live in the illusion that social perfection is achievable if only we enact this government program and raise that tax.

Mainecoons
02-23-2013, 07:11 PM
That was low...

But accurate. :rofl:

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 07:12 PM
Then you aren't a leftist.

The absolute core of leftism/socialism/progressivism is the use of government to cure all social ills. And to direct the economy because they are smarter than the natural workings of human nature and markets. Which of course is total nonsense and has been disproven time and time and time again.

Leftists simply don't learn from the mistakes and failures of their ideas. When confronted with failure, they double down on it.

Libertarians simply know better because we understand and use empirical reasoning and proof. Real leftists live in the illusion that social perfection is achievable if only we enact this government program and raise that tax.

Government doesn't cure all ills; but goverment can be very effective at protecting and providing services that benefit the constituents. Big government can be a good thing when done correctly. The US does not do it correctly.

KC
02-23-2013, 07:15 PM
Government doesn't cure all ills; but goverment can be very effective at protecting and providing services that benefit the constituents. Big government can be a good thing when done correctly. The US does not do it correctly.

This is where I depart from libertarians. I think government has a legitimate function in providing non-exclusionary services.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 07:17 PM
This is where I depart from libertarians. I think government has a legitimate function in providing non-exclusionary services.

What do you mean by "non-exclusionary services"?

KC
02-23-2013, 07:21 PM
What do you mean by "non-exclusionary services"?

Anything that a person can not be excluded from because they didn't pay for it. For example, national defense is non exclusionary. You cannot exclude someone from benefiting from the rewards of national defense, regardless of whether they contribute to it. Clean water, clean air, things like that are other examples.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 07:28 PM
Open borders is a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned but some libertarians, particularly the older school, seem to understand that libertarianism is a unique historical and bio-cultural phenomenon at least in terms of civilized society. Where do our libertarians fall?

Mister D
02-23-2013, 07:29 PM
Anything that a person can not be excluded from because they didn't pay for it. For example, national defense is non exclusionary. You cannot exclude someone from benefiting from the rewards of national defense, regardless of whether they contribute to it. Clean water, clean air, things like that are other examples.

I agree. If the state pays for it then all citizens should be able benefit from said services.

Pete7469
02-23-2013, 08:55 PM
That's the climate we live, unfortunately. You have to be obnoxious for anyone to listen. That doesn't excuse her. I'm just putting it in perspective.

I've read a couple of her books. I generally agreed with her and I love how the mere sound of her voice creates contortions in the backs of spineless liberal bed wetters. Her mere presence creates a knee jerk reaction in moonbat universities where they come out in mobs to prove they hate free speech.

Her recent support of moderate RINOs like Romney and Christie has caused me to loose a lot of respect for her oppinions. Her anti-libertarian rant did't help. The republican establishment should be cultivating the libertarian cause, because it is the exact opposite of liberalism at least as far as government involvement in people's lives are concerned.




She does have a point, some libertarians are libertines. That, too, was Kirk Russell's plaint. IOW, some look at freedom the way many liberals do, as an escape from responsibility.


As far as dope and immorality are concerned "liberals" only want "liberty" for people to make these "choices" so that it weakens the fabric of society. Conservatives still don't seem to understand what they know about guns. Outlaw something and people demand it even more.

I don't see the benefit of any drug being available anywhere for anyone without regulation. I don't think abortion should be legal for anyone (except liberals) up until 8 months and 29 days of pregnancy. I don't think prostitution, gambling or all the other behavior banning laws are a solution to social problems, but it's obvious that humans have a rebellious nature. At least in this country. Euroweenies seem to be more easily controlled. The moonbats want to make us euroweenies, I have a natural inclination to reject them.

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 09:05 PM
This is where I depart from libertarians. I think government has a legitimate function in providing non-exclusionary services.

Government should act where the free market does not.

For example. The levee system along the Mississippi River. The free market system wouldn't build that. The rich people would protect their homes and businesses and the poor would get flooded. So government comes in and builds a levee system, however imperfect.

Pete7469
02-23-2013, 09:14 PM
The great thing about political view points is they are very rarely black and white. We can measure them by attitudes related to how much state involvement, but it's a continuum, not fixed labels.


So there can be a lot of variation, and there are going to be some "libertarians" who you and others may find are very agreeable, others not so much.

At some point you have to stand on "right vs. wrong". Liberals are always wrong, the few things they approach being right on, such as pot decriminalization are not promoted to strengthen society. The agenda is to destroy. Never doubt that.



That's not true. I'm one of the furthest left members and I have a respect for Libertarianism that I do not necessarily have or have as much of for Democrats or Republicans.

On what chart are you far left? You're one of the few sane "liberals" on this forum. Don't confuse your compassion as "liberalism", since you're willing to spend your own money to help people rather than take all of mine.



Government doesn't cure all ills; but goverment can be very effective at protecting and providing services that benefit the constituents. Big government can be a good thing when done correctly. The US does not do it correctly.

Governement never does it correctly, show me one country on earth that has no poverty, no crime, perfect healthcare, and a reasonable tax system. If a government agency could end poverty it would put itself out of that business. It prolongs poverty in order to expand it's power, and the buearucrats make sure they have jobs for life.

KC
02-23-2013, 09:17 PM
Government should act where the free market does not.

For example. The levee system along the Mississippi River. The free market system wouldn't build that. The rich people would protect their homes and businesses and the poor would get flooded. So government comes in and builds a levee system, however imperfect.

Right. You can't exclude people from the benefits of levees, such as not being flooded, so they must be paid for collectively. That makes building basic infrastructure a non-exclusionary service.

Chris
02-23-2013, 09:49 PM
That's not true. I'm one of the furthest left members and I have a respect for Libertarianism that I do not necessarily have or have as much of for Democrats or Republicans.

That should be libertarian with a lower case l, meaning libertarian principles; not upper case L, meaning Libertarian Party. IMO, principles and parties rarely align. It is, imo, antithetical to libertarian principles to run for office as a Libertarian, Democrat or Republican. A "true" libertarian wouldn't run, just dissent and protest.

Also US left and right are odd politically and not the same as Canadian or European--I think Canadian and European left and right are similar.

Chris
02-23-2013, 09:51 PM
Right. You can't exclude people from the benefits of levees, such as not being flooded, so they must be paid for collectively. That makes building basic infrastructure a non-exclusionary service.

Historically, levees were built privately before government decided it was a public good.

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 09:52 PM
Historically, levees were built privately before government decided it was a public good.


Cite and describe the extent of these systems

Chris
02-23-2013, 09:53 PM
Open borders is a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned but some libertarians, particularly the older school, seem to understand that libertarianism is a unique historical and bio-cultural phenomenon at least in terms of civilized society. Where do our libertarians fall?

Libertarians fall all over the place.

There are libertarian arguments pro and con open boarder immigration, just as there are libertarian arguments prochoice and prolife.

It all depends on what principles you start with.

Chris
02-23-2013, 09:56 PM
Cite and describe the extent of these systems

We went through this before and I did then. Right now I have a movie to watch, so I'll look it up tomorrow.

Generally the public good argument for government is the beginning of socialism if you follow it to its logical conclusion everything becomes a public good.

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 09:58 PM
We went through this before and I did then. Right now I have a movie to watch, so I'll look it up tomorrow.

Generally the public good argument for government is the beginning of socialism if you follow it to its logical conclusion everything becomes a public good.

The free market is not going to protect everyone from floods. It will protect the productive parts of town.....

Especially when we are talking about an extremely large flood zone.

KC
02-23-2013, 10:18 PM
We went through this before and I did then. Right now I have a movie to watch, so I'll look it up tomorrow.

Generally the public good argument for government is the beginning of socialism if you follow it to its logical conclusion everything becomes a public good.

Not everything is non exclusionary, I think you're making a slippery slope fallacy. You can exclude me from the benefits you receive from buying a product that I had no part in producing. For example, if you buy a sandwich, you can fairly easily exclude me from the benefits of your sandwich by not sharing it with me.

As a counterexample, suppose you and I are neighbors. You and a few other neighbors put up the money for a streetlight so our neighborhood is safer for driving at night. I refuse to pay my part for the streetlight, knowing that you and the other neighbors can put up the cost and I will receive the benefits anyhow. It's a free rider problem.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 10:19 PM
That should be libertarian with a lower case l, meaning libertarian principles; not upper case L, meaning Libertarian Party. IMO, principles and parties rarely align. It is, imo, antithetical to libertarian principles to run for office as a Libertarian, Democrat or Republican. A "true" libertarian wouldn't run, just dissent and protest.

Also US left and right are odd politically and not the same as Canadian or European--I think Canadian and European left and right are similar.

I meant the ideology.

I don't know that I agree with you about Canada and Europe, (and I'm assuming you mean developed countries in Europe, such as OECD members). In Canada, the NDP and Conservatives are far apart in what they want. The NDP has moved slightly to the right in order to be more relevant. The Conservatives moved slightly to the left for the same reasons. The Liberals are in the middle dazed and confused because they not only lost the last election but lost the official opposition position for the first time in history. Provincially, NDP wants full-day kindergarten, a nationalized program for buying medications, stronger unions, and so forth. Those are things the Conservatives would never go for. The NDP would be considered social democrats.

But in terms of major issues, social issues (which tend to be federal powers), they're locked up and liberal so issues in parliament and between the parties tend to be economical in nature. Nobody wants to touch the social issues - it's political suicide. We literally have no laws for abortion. None. No restrictions. It's entirely up to the physician to decide if he's willing to abort an 8 month old fetus, and it would be legal because there are no laws. And everyone is pretty much fine with that, or at least completely indifferent to it. No physician would ever do that, by the way, but it would technically not break any laws because there is no law to break.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 10:31 PM
On what chart are you far left? You're one of the few sane "liberals" on this forum. Don't confuse your compassion as "liberalism", since you're willing to spend your own money to help people rather than take all of mine.

Governement never does it correctly, show me one country on earth that has no poverty, no crime, perfect healthcare, and a reasonable tax system. If a government agency could end poverty it would put itself out of that business. It prolongs poverty in order to expand it's power, and the buearucrats make sure they have jobs for life.


Pretty much every chart. The difference between me and most liberals is that my ideal world isn't what the majority wants and I accept it. I won't try to force my views on them, especially since I know I am in the minority. Thus, I vote for whichever party has the best ideas now. For what makes sense now. Or at least, what I think makes sense and what other Canadians need. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it ideologically. I like to say I'm a common sense socialist.

No system is perfect. But there are many countries with large governments who prosper economically and socially because of regulations, and social programs that are accountable and audited. They still have crime (far lower than the US), and they still have poverty, (far lower than the US) but they have access to universal healthcare. Safety nets of all types for the disadvantaged citizens. The Scandinavian countries are great examples - and yes, they pay a lot in taxes but on every study and survey they are happy with what they have. If the people are happy and it is what they want or the direction they wish to go in, that is what matters. Which is why I would never suggest that the US model itself after Denmark or Sweden or Norway... the US is culturally very different in so many ways. But I will say that your government has been big for a long time; big and out of control. Doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans; they all want the wrong kind of big government.

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 10:52 PM
Sweden is cutting back on its social programs to avoid bankruptcy.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 10:55 PM
Sweden is cutting back on its social programs to avoid bankruptcy.

Maybe not my best example, lol.

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 11:04 PM
Unfortunately, most social democracies have hit the funding wall.

We all want to take care of all citizens. The question is how to best to that.

History shows that we don't have enough money to do it by government programs. I really wish it was different.

Captain Obvious
02-24-2013, 12:07 AM
Coulter is desperate for attention anymore.

Chris
02-24-2013, 12:19 AM
The free market is not going to protect everyone from floods. It will protect the productive parts of town.....

Especially when we are talking about an extremely large flood zone.

Movie is over.

Yes, the free market will protect everyone.

First, history, here specifically New Orleans' Levee System--any would do as they all have similar histories--from The Mississippi Levee System and the Old River Control Structure (http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/FloodControl.htm):


The muddy Mississippi has wound its way through this country's history since the first European settlers set foot on the shores of America. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have built their civilizations next to the water, and the early Americans were no exception. To the settlers of Mid-America, the Mississippi River was one of their most valuable resources. It provided them with a means of transportation for developing commerce and industry, as well as water for crops and irrigation. While settlers enjoyed their ready access to the river, they did not enjoy its ready access to them. Floods frequently swept away their attempts at permanent settlements. The consensus grew that the Mississippi would need to be artificially controlled in order for society to benefit from its proximity.

The history of man's attempts to control the Mississippi is full of both success and failure. Levees already existed when the first French trappers ventured into the wilds of Louisiana. These levees were formed naturally by the Mississippi's fluvial processes and tended to be no more than a meter or two in height. Building up these natural levees was the first solution to the flooding problem. In 1717, the first manmade levee system was started by Bienville, the founder of the city of New Oreans. The construction of the first levees, which reached only three feet in height, was completed in 1727. After that, it was left to private interests to extend the levees. By 1743, French landowners were required to build and maintain the levees along their riverfront property or forfeit their lands to the French crown. However, it soon became obvious that these small levees, although augmented through the efforts of the settlers, were not enough protection against Mississippi flood waters. During large floods, the river would frequently break through at weakened points in the levees, referred to as crevasses. Many crevasses, such as the Macarty Crevasse of 1816, took many lives and caused extensive property damage.

The unorganized levee system was finally turned over to the Army Corps of Engineers....

Levee systems were first built privately.

Now you could argue, but those failed, therefore it is necessary that government build levee systems. OK, that is why I chose NO, the government-built levee system failed with Katrina. So there goes that argument, governments can't do it any better.

It stands to reason people built the first levee systems because those people also created the government. Those who stood to gain, businesses, would naturally build the first levees to protect their property, capital, investments. They wouldn't pay for it as the cost would be passed down as increased prices to consumers of their goods and services. That's the economic means to the free market. And it's just as natural for these same people to eventually see an easier political means, just manufacture an emotional argument about common goods for the people, offer bribes in the form of campaign contributions to politicians, and get government to take wealth from the people and redistribute it for their special needs as special favors.

There is nothing people couldn't do more effectively and efficiently.

BTW, that form of redistribution is called conservative socialism. It increases the wealth of the rich or at least maintains their status quo.

Peter1469
02-24-2013, 12:29 AM
Your link says that the levee was made by the government at 3 feet. Then private interests made it bigger. And then France required property owners to make them larger....

It is not a free market that will protect 1000 miles of river from flooding. That is why we have government.

Chris
02-24-2013, 12:33 AM
Your link says that the levee was made by the government at 3 feet. Then private interests made it bigger. And then France required property owners to make them larger....

It is not a free market that will protect 1000 miles of river from flooding. That is why we have government.

Reread, it was initially made privately. The person who started it was also mayor, but the city didn't pay for it, he did.

Well, government is not capable either.