> And people keep proposing systems that do worse than that and refusing to critically assess how their ideas work out in practice vs a free market.
Can you provide examples of the baseline you’re using to say that other systems do worse? Successful implementations, not idealized imaginings.
What is the plan? Imprison the person living in the ratty house? Fine them into oblivion? I've never heard of a case of a town council taking over someone's house to repair it - I'm sure it happened somewhere once but that is quite the outlier.
I've seen plenty of dilapidated houses, and lived near some quite large rats. There is no reason to think it would be worse in a more liberal society.
> Can you provide examples of the baseline you’re using to say that other systems do worse? Successful implementations, not idealized imaginings.
goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index and scans down the list
Hong Kong, jewel of Asia? Switzerland is probably pretty decentralised too, they certainly have the most democratic government I know of. And the highest-ranked superpower on the list, everyone's favourite USA, is famous for having some of the strongest constraints on their government in the world.
To be honest, I'd be happy if we all just did what Switzerland does. I'll take extreme democracy over any specific ideology if pushed. We can argue the details later.
If you have this little information about how societies work, maybe it would be a good idea to do some reading before making bold pronouncements about how hypothetical systems are better. Cities have various approaches and degrees of success so there are plenty of real world examples you can compare with details rather than treating it like a dorm room hypothetical.
> Hong Kong, jewel of Asia? Switzerland is probably pretty decentralised too, they certainly have the most democratic government I know of. And the highest-ranked superpower on the list, everyone's favourite USA, is famous for having some of the strongest constraints on their government in the world.
None of those are commonly considered libertarian states and they all have many examples of rules which most libertarians oppose (e.g. the Swiss gun control laws) so it would again be better to talk about specific real policies rather than hypotheticals which are too vague to evaluate.
I've seen a lot of derelict properties in my time. It would appear nothing was being done.
What various approaches are you thinking here? I think it is more likely that you aren't paying attention to derelict properties and rats than that I've missed something. If a homeowner doesn't want to maintain their home then there isn't a whole lot that gets done about it.
> they all have many examples of rules which most libertarians oppose (e.g. the Swiss gun control laws)
Switzerland does have one of the highest guns/capita in the world though. Nowhere is ideologically pure, it isn't like you can point to an example of any state that is only driven by one ideology. China has capitalists, the US has socialists, the Europeans have literal Nazis, etc etc. Everyone has a mix of policies based on who is pushing what agenda. There is evidence that if the liberty-authority dial is pushed towards liberty then there are some shining examples of success.
But that is all beside the point I wanted to make - libertarianism just doesn't assume that everyone is making great rational decisions. That isn't how groups of people work. Libertarianism is just noting that the evidence government makes things better on average is questionable. Governments are routinely behind the worst massacres - which is certainly cause for a raised eyebrow and asking some questions. And given the regularity with which the financial system collapses it really isn't obvious the government is helping there either. Then regulation is either making us do things that would happen anyway, or blocking quick responses when the situation is changing radically (eg, the lockdowns were official enforcement of stuff I was largely going to be doing anyway).
> specific real policies rather than hypothetical which are too vague to evaluate.
Korea got the first coronavirus tests, and reliable ones, because they let private enterprise develop them. The US tried a government-led response and badly fumbled the first few months. The regulator was the source of the problems. More libertarian policies in the medical field would have prevented that.
