Well, Libertarians, here's your chance to defend Enron

[Libertarian]

Chaos Theory is the mathematical analysis of nonlinear systems. Here's a brief introductory essay from Duke University.

[Wraith]

--"Not all of us do."

Good thing I said "several" instead of "all" then

--"Even with huge fines against the airport security company, it still didn't get it right."

And you fail to understand what part the government played in that failure.

I would love to see where you got that 70% stat, by the way, not to mention when it was gathered.

--"Protection from death, protection from environmental ruin, protection from extreme poverty, protection from poor health coverage."

The government cannot protect you from death. The most you get from the government is a promise to try and try track down your killer if you're murdered (there are several instructive Supreme Court cases on this subject, btw).
Environmental ruin. Gods, will you stop with the sensationalims. I do agree that the government is there to protect property rights (protecting rights is its sole just function), but I know that's not what you mean.
Protection from extreme poverty is not the government's job. That's what charities are for.
Protection from poor health care. Gods, look, health care is not and can never be a right. Nor can having a job be a right, nor can being fed be a right. Government should stay out of this.

--"the last ice age reversed in the course of about 25 years"

Okay, I am not even going to bother arguing this issue with you. There's obviously no point.

--"and then barred employees from selling their stock."

As I have already (and repeatedly) stated, this does not appear to be the case according to more recent reports. If they did, it would still be fraud, but at least leave the problems to what they have done.

--"As the society grows and becomes more complex, it requires government to grow to meet these demands."

Ah. The magic government argument. I'm sorry, but government is made up of individuals. If they can't be trusted to run their own lives, as you claim, then how can they be trusted to run other people's lives?

--"Did it work?"

Hard to say, since we didn't allow it to happen.

--"I'm not "changing the subject,""

Dropping context, changing the subject, ignoring answers, whatever you want to call it.

--"The airline security tycoons?"

Okay, now there's a good line. I'll have to remember this one. I think this is a good candidate for my quote file, really. I mean, we all know about the airline security tycoons, right? I mean, Carnegie, Rockefeller... wait a sec...

--"Why don't modern libertarians?"

If you would damn well stop ignoring my comments, you would stop saying this. Minarchist is not the same as anarchist. Your earlier comment about privitizing law enforcement was totally uncalled for, especially after I said specifically that police are one of the things libertarians see as a just government function.

--"If not, I'll explain later, but basically chaos theory helps explain why governments are always going to grow"

Chaos theory has diddly to do with the growth of government. There are other, just as fundamental, principles behind this. One of them is known as "protecting your power base".

The increasing complexity of things is exactly why government is increasingly failing. Government is, pretty much by definition, slow to change. The free market is very quick to change; there is a large financial incentive for doing so in ways that match what's going on in society. Your argument is bogus.

--" Take any chemistry class, and you'll hear about how disorder is always increasing in the universe."

Which would be entroy (or the second law of thermodynamics, if you prefer), not chaos theory, which is something else entirely.

Wraith
I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

[Adam Smith]

The arguments on this thread are just going all over the map. Just a couple comments.

First, Adam Smith laid out the basic framework. He recognized taht markets can and do fail. In the succeeding 226 years economists have identified further possible market failures, and proposed solutions for them. These solutions do not necessarily involve government performing the function in question.

Second, it is not at all clear what the mechanism of market failure is in the airline security case. People on this thread seem to have variously argued that
1. Private security providers will cut security in the interest of increasing profits;
2. Airlines do not have the resources to provide adequate security;
3. Consumers do not have a choice between more and less secure airlines;
4. Individual firms may not provide security since consumers may balk at paying higher prices.
Putting aside the fact that some of these arguments are mutually contradictory, the argument appears to boil down to

What makes enforcing FAA regulations so inherently different than the police enforcing other laws?

The answer is that this is a case where the solution does not necessarily involve government. While most individuals are in no position to hire their own police forces, most airlines are capable of and have a financial interest in hiring their own security forces and ensuring that they do a good job, as indicated by the El Al example. (Note also that while most individuals are in no position to hire their own police forces, they can often choose between living in towns that have better or worse police forces, higher or lower crime rates.)

(edit: removing the Curse of Apolyton)

[The Eliminator]

Hoek, I recommend that you read a book called "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman. Its a short book, you can read it in an evening, and I guarantee it will promote you look differently at the situations that you are arguing for.

Slippery as a greased cat indeed. Free markets are the answer to most of the problems we are facing right now. Modern governments are confused in their role, they have gone from faciliators to owners. The biggest problem facing the North American economy is the increased desire of our governments to crowd out private enterprise.

[Libertarian]

The arguments on this thread are just going all over the map.

Amen to that. Chaos Theory? Entropy? Next thing you know, they'll invoke the Alvarez Hypothesis.

[Drake Tungsten]

I wouldn't argue that society isn't becoming more complex; I think it is obvious that it is and has been for most of human history. The error I see in your argument, however, is that you assume that the "government" is the only resource available to handle the increasing complexity of society. I would propose that individual adaptation and cultural changes play a much greater role in helping humans cope with increased social complexity. To say that libertarians are ignorant for opposing a large government is absurd; it seems to me that libertarians simply have more faith than you do in the ability of individuals to cope with societal changes without the help of an overarching government. I'm inclined to agree with them.

[Libertarian]

Modern governments are confused in their role, they have gone from [facilitators] to owners.

Well said. Rights, of course, are merely an attribute of ownership. The de facto owner of property is whoever calls the shots with respect to it. That's true no matter who the de jure owner is. And the owner is always the prescriptor of rights.

Rights are meaningless outside the concept of property.

[Hoek]

Well, I thought it was chaos theory...much of this argument is based on the first chapter of "the age of spiritual machines" and I may have gotten it wrong, but I believe he was saying that chaos theory as applied to the nature of time reveals all these various exponential trends such as the birth and growth of the universe, evolutionary biology, technological advancement, and computing capabilities of computers. The idea here is that the same trends exist in science and society.

[Hoek]

Well, I thought it was chaos theory...much of this argument is based on the first chapter of "the age of spiritual machines" and I may have gotten it wrong, but I believe he was saying that chaos theory as applied to the nature of time reveals all these various exponential trends such as the birth and growth of the universe, evolutionary biology, technological advancement, and computing capabilities of computers. The idea here is that the same trends exist in science and society.

Don't believe me if you want about dramatic climate change, but those who have studied this would know a little better than you.

[Libertarian]

No problem. Take all the time you need to get your ducks in a row, and then get back to us.

[Hoek]

People do not have the ability to directly voice their security concerns through their dollars since there is a step in between. Airlines hired security guards, and people paid for the tickets. The voice of not giving an airline your money is not always a clear indication of what's needed, and beyond that, the system is essentially flawed in that, for instance, police forces do what is needed to enforce the law, whereas private security firms will do the minimum needed to operate at a profit. This incrementalism can be avoided by federalizing the security forces. Additionally, it provides a uniformity in security from place to place.

In terms of rights, I think government's role should be prioritized as follows (which is why it was listed in this order): life, liberty, and property. If somebody's liberty threatens another's life, then that liberty should not be allowed. If somebody's property threatens somebody else's liberty or life, then it must be taken away. I put the highest emphasis on the right to life because property and liberty can come and go, but you only have one shot at life.

[Libertarian]

Your life is your very first property.

[Wraith]

--"The arguments on this thread are just going all over the map"

Non-linear, far from equilibrium, and strangely attracted.
Since we're delving into math theories...

--"most airlines are capable of and have a financial interest in hiring their own security forces"

In this case they were not allowed to do so, however. I want to cover this in a bit.

--"much of this argument is based on the first chapter of "the age of spiritual machines""

I really hope you're basing your politics on more than one chapter in a book

--"but those who have studied this would know a little better than you."

Yes, and most of those people agree with me. The people most vocal in support of it have little to no knowledge in the subject. Most of those have large vested interests in seeing the hoax perpetuated. Eco-scares are a huge, profitable industry. Implementing something like Kyoto could be the first step towards turning it into an even more profitable one.

--"Airlines hired security guards, and people paid for the tickets."

You need to understand the way airline security worked before the federalization (not that it's changed yet). At an airport, all airlines that operate there must pay into a security fund. This is used to pay for the airport security. Any airline deciding it wanted greater security was either out of luck or had to pay to also incresae the security of all of its rivals. This is a large disincentive to improved security.
In addition, federal standards ensured a very homogenous security level. Your "increased uniformity" was already in place. In addition, this kind of uniformity is a bad thing from a security standpoint. If every airport is the same, then anyone trying to violate the security does not have to worry about the little differences that can trip them up. They only have to learn and counter a single system.

The point about federal standards for security nullifies the voting with bucks point. Passengers have two options: accept the federally mandated level of security, along with its expenses and delays, or not fly. They could not choose between multiple levels of security, and in some cases can not readily choose not to fly (international business trips, for instance). There was no market freedom for the airlines, either, thanks to the security pool I mentioned above.

--"If somebody's liberty threatens another's life, then that liberty should not be allowed."

But without liberty, life is pretty meaningless. This argument could easily be used to make slaves of everyone in the country (and, really, is in the process of doing so).

The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights, but that does not mean the government can guarantee it. All the government can do is set forth laws and protections to keep people from violating it. This means that you should be protected from murders, but it does not mean that the government should give you food and shelter.
You cannot justify the violation of one right by saying it's to protect another, because rights by definition cannot function in that manner.

Wraith
The big print giveth, and the small print taketh away

[Hoek]

Two centuries of constitutional law says otherwise. Ever hear of the phrase "your right to swing your fists ends at my nose?" Clearly, the priorities are Life, Liberty, and Property in that order. You say that life is pretty meaningless without liberty, but turn that around: liberty is pretty meaningless without life. I also noticed that you did not say "life is pretty worthless without property." A loss of liberty can be temporary, while a loss of life is permanent. If I had the choice between living and nowing I wouldn't be absolutely free all that time and having dying for liberty, I'll take life. That's why the cold war was so ridiculous. You can only principled so far. Would you have really rather seen the world destroyed than be occupied by the Russians? Liberty and Property are always recoverable, while life is not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ever hear of the phrase "your right to swing your fists ends at my nose?" Clearly, the priorities are Life, Liberty, and Property in that order. You say that life is pretty meaningless without liberty, but turn that around: liberty is pretty meaningless without life. I also noticed that you did not say "life is pretty worthless without property." A loss of liberty can be temporary, while a loss of life is permanent.

Ever hear the phrase "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"?

Liberty and Property aren't as important as life, yes. But life isn't particularly worth living without liberty and property either. It seems to me you have no problem with having your liberty and property taken away as long as you have your life. Very slippery slope.