How far down the libertarian utopia rabbithole does this go? Could Mr Didorosi hire armed guards to protect his fleet? Where is the line drawn? I knew Detroit was bad, but I did not know it was this semi-anarchy you describe.
> How far down the libertarian utopia rabbithole does this go? Could Mr Didorosi hire armed guards to protect his fleet? Where is the line drawn?
Yes, he could - but not because it's anarchy, but because it's actually legal for anyone to do that in the state of Michigan. It's one of the better states, as far as gun laws go.
The line is drawn where the cops have resources to enforce. Rape, murder, armed robbery, major assaults - they usually get to these things. Interestingly, traffic tickets, too - revenue is important.
I think Detroit could have an economic revival if they just took a portion of the city build walls around it and made it an anything goes zone where you can do whatever you want.
But why would you hire armed guards when you can hire off duty police officers who will wear their uniforms while they work for you? Yes, you can do this legally!
Also the local police, as part of a labor action, are now WARNING people Attention: Enter Detroit at your Own Risk
It's funny you should rail against libertarians when discussing a city that's where it is at least in part because the productive people were driven away through extra taxes and regulation.
The "productive people" were driven away because they didn't want to live next to black people. The Detroit metro area isn't any smaller than it used to be--people just moved to the suburbs. There aren't appreciably fewer regulations in the Detroit suburbs, and taxes aren't any lower either (what you save in sales tax you more than lose in property taxes).
It's also a little funny considering that 27% of US GDP comes from just seven heavily regulated, heavily taxed metros: NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Philly, SF, and Boston. And it's not just population, these cities only account for 20% of the US population.
>The "productive people" were driven away because they didn't want to live next to black people.
This is wrong. You think one day all the white people said "Hey, wait a minute! We've been living next to black people for generations, and that has to stop"? It's not the taxes on people that are the problem, it's the taxes and regulations on businesses. Detroit took the attitude the car companies would always be around no matter what stupid rule the city came up with. The problem is businesses come and go. If your city sucks for business, more go than come and eventually you're Detroit.
>It's also a little funny considering that 27% of US GDP comes from just seven heavily regulated, heavily taxed metros: NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Philly, SF, and Boston. And it's not just population, these cities only account for 20% of the US population.
Yes, and eventually those places will end up like Detroit. Hell, NYC almost went that way in the '70s and was only rescued by the financial industry they seem intent on driving away today.
Its both actually. Take the riots from the 60s and 70s, and the blight of the 80s (when I was there!), white flight led to a huge implosion of property taxes. They tried to make that up in business taxes, which then forced out the businesses, and the death spiral continues! Cities are pretty fragile places, one disruption can set off a chain reaction and...bam! It will take some revolutionary thinking to save Detroit.
You are completely wrong that "those places" will turn out like Detroit. Their ecosystems are very healthy, NYC went from bankrupt in the 70s, via some good public policy and not just wall street, back to the premiere world city that it was. The only at risk city on the list is Philly, but it seems to be doing pretty well recently. These are healthy ecosystems, even with taxes (or you could say, using taxes to pay the police to enforce laws is a good thing).
There is no great migration of people to red cities (cities in red states with low taxes), and even those red cities are quite blue (Atlanta in Georgia, Houston in Texas). Cities are just against libertarian principles, dense societies need to pull resources together to survive and thrive.
> There is no great migration of people to red cities (cities in red states with low taxes), and even those red cities are quite blue (Atlanta in Georgia, Houston in Texas). Cities are just against libertarian principles, dense societies need to pull resources together to survive and thrive.
As someone who lived in Atlanta for a long time and now lives in Chicago, I find the idea that southern boom cities are less taxed and less regulated to be laughable. Atlanta is completely owned by the democratic party. The boom in these cities is being driven by housing prices, not business climate.
All politics is local, but Atlanta democrats aren't blue dogs. Their constituency is very urban, which means they will be more liberal than say a democrat who represents farmland in North Dakota.
> This is wrong. You think one day all the white people said "Hey, wait a minute!
Pretty much exactly this, between school desegregation and the construction of interstates through the cities that made suburban commutes easier.
> Yes, and eventually those places will end up like Detroit. Hell, NYC almost went that way in the '70s and was only rescued by the financial industry they seem intent on driving away today.
All of these cities have growing GDPs and populations. Some are growing faster, like Houston or Atlanta, but that was driven by cheap housing and has collapsed dramatically with the end of the housing boom. Indeed, the country is urbanizing and more people are moving into the cities.
Isn't that just the headquarters trick? Someone like Wells Fargo is SF-based and someone like Chase is NY-based, yet economic activity of those two is happening all around the world, and just gets reported in SF and NY.
> The "productive people" were driven away because they didn't want to live next to black people.
This is demonstrably false.
I grew up in Detroit and moved away at 23 because the economy sucked and I could make a bunch more money just about anywhere else. Race doesn't even begin to factor in to it.
(I was born in the city, raised in the suburbs, moved downtown at 18.)
Hmm, I somewhat thought you were, because the term "Utopia" is usually used sarcastically when applied to Libertarianism, and often mentioned with Somalia.
As for Detroit, as long as gangs don't fill the void, it could certainly be a great example of spontaneous order arising.
There's a world of difference between libertarianism and anarchism. Part of the reason why I'm a libertarian is that I think it's really important for government to stay focused on the things it is actually important for it to do, such as public safety and fire protection (among other things), because when it gets too big and too bloated and eventually collapses, the whole thing comes down, not just the big and bloated parts.
Too many people, especially in comfortable first-world countries, have political ideologies that don't account for the fact that governments can fail and/or collapse, in whole or in part. When you rush to centralize every service you can on that foundation, you are putting a lot of eggs in one basket, and it's not a magical invincible basket... it's just a basket.
