SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
January 3, 2012· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Life in the SCV in Ron Paul’s America

Nicholas Wapshott, British journalist and author of an excellent new book on John Maynard Keynes and Friederich Hayek, ponders what life would be like in America if Ron Paul was elected president and his libertarian ideals became the law (or lack thereof?) of the land.

Paul’s policies would mean turning the clock back two centuries, to a time when the United States was a trading nation but otherwise blithely cut off from the world. It would mean an unregulated free-market economy that Charles Dickens would have recognized, where big businesses would rule the roost.Most public services, including city governments, would be run by private companies, and representative democracy — the U.S. system that libertarians deride as “the tyranny of the majority” — would be cut to a bare minimum.

This is a fun exercise, especially since several of my Facebook friends have recently become Ron Paul fans. Libertarianism and maximal personal freedom are en vogue it seems.

But how would such a system work locally, here in the SCV?

Image not recoveredron_paul2012_sticker.jpg
I’ve done some reading and thought we could engage in a brief thought experiment on what the SCV would look like under a libertarian society as voters head to the polls today in Iowa. From my understanding, there’s a sliding scale to libertarianism that goes from “Okay, that’s not so bad,” to “OMG it really is every man for himself!” Let’s dig in:

Kinder, Friendlier Libertarianism (Statist)

This type of libertarianism isn’t so dissimilar to what we have now in the SCV. Libertarians in this school of thought recognize the value of having a government, a government that builds out, protects, and makes available public goods such as roads, parks, and other infrastructure, provides police and justice services, and enforces contracts (schools aren’t run by the City now, so let’s exclude them from this discussion).

But government would be limited in so many other areas, we’d see a radically different SCV. Perhaps fire, earthquake and other safety codes would find their place in this theoretical Santa Clarita, but no others. One Valley One Vision smacks of central planning and would have no purchase here. Codes limiting density or the height of buildings? Gone! Those heavy-handed government regulations shoved down the throats of enterprising massage parlor owners recently? What business is it of the City’s what two consenting adults do in privacy? Efforts by the city to promote local businesses probably wouldn’t remain because tax rates would be much much lower; after all spending $60,000 a year to promote Auto Row means that $60,000 was taken from local taxpayers.

Getting a little scary now (Minarchism) 

So, under this school of libertarianism, we’d still likely have a real, authentic, City of Santa Clarita government. Its role in the SCV would be drastically minimized, however. We’d probably only have a police department and a court system whose function would be to protect “individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud.”

Notice what’s missing. No more City Parks. Private individuals would pool their capital and (hopefully) buy up land and charge a fee for park use. Maybe we’d get better parks, but we’d have to pay to use them. Naturally the best parks would be in wealthier areas. Sorry skater kids, your days of persuading the City to spend $100k on a temporary skate park while they build you a world-class skatepark are gone! The same goes for roads, which would all likely become private or owned communally by HOAs or neighborhood associations. Think Placerita Canyon and its Power Posse here.

No public transit service. It’s possible under this scenario that private transport companies would spring up and offer service to those who have no cars or who choose not to drive, as this was the model early in the 20th century. But unless there was sufficient competition among private carriers, it wouldn’t be as affordable as a service subsidized by the City. We might see an exodus of middle class people who depend on the Metrolink and an influx of poorer people who take buses to get to jobs in the SCV. Demand for housing would change, in other words.

The planning commission- what’s that but a tool of government to limit the freedom of property owners? We’re entering pure free-market territory here; imagine Canyon Country/Hamburger Hill style chaos writ large; ridgelines gone, oak trees demolished, and canyons plundered. That is, if the demand was there. Ironically, local environmentalists might pine for the days of Newhall Land’s Master Plan, in which at least some open space was spared and some thought was given to organized development. But such firms would be few and far between; we’d essentially be returning to the bad old days of pre-City rule. If we didn’t like it, it’d be up to us to buy land on the open market and preserve it. Maybe that would work?

On the plus side, maybe we’d finally get faster, world-class internet access. There are no cable franchise agreements in this system; if I want Verizon FIOS, I just find a bunch of neighbors who want it too and we pay Verizon to trench our street (without a city permit!) and deliver 100mb of fiber internet directly to my house. Suck on that Time Warner!

Every man for himself (Anarcho-Capitalism) 

In this system of libertarianism, there is no City of Santa Clarita at all. Maybe Newhall Land, Waste Management, the for-profit Water Retailers, and LSSI get together quarterly to coordinate things, then again, maybe not.

Police, fire, courts, justice and prison would all be run by private companies on an open market exchange. If Westridge wants police services, they’d contract with Acme Police, Inc. If Canyon Country wants fire service, neighbors in that area would buy individual or perhaps neighborhood-wide fire insurance. Perhaps the private courts would have an agreed-upon framework for laws, perhaps not.

Of all the schools of libertarian thought, this is perhaps the most murky and the most utopian, so let’s not spend too much time discussing it. Suffice it to say, you’d pay no local taxes under this scenario, but you’d be responsible for much more.

And that’s something that’s common to all these schools of thought. More personal freedom and less taxes, but more personal responsibility for the things we take for granted now.

Do local Ron Paul fans really know what they are advocating for when it comes to libertarianism? I hope some chime in here.

 

Life in the SCV in Ron Paul’s America

Comments (30)

  1. AlpinerJanuary 3, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    Ron Paul scares this conservative Republican to death. Libertarianism taken to this degree leads to chaos, plain and simple.
  2. JeffJanuary 3, 2012 at 2:26 pm
    Does it really though? You’ve argued on these pages you want government to be hands-off when it comes to business and free enterprise. You just can’t stomach the same laissez-faire attitude when it comes to religion, drugs, or personal morality. You, and most Republicans are , in effect, half-libertarian, aren’t you?
  3. 4eyedsueJanuary 3, 2012 at 3:30 pm
    woot! Bring on that “laissez-faire attitude”- although Ron Paul is really not the Libertarian to get it from. It’s that “other” libertarian currently running for nomination who truly believes in personal liberty.
  4. NateJanuary 3, 2012 at 4:53 pm
    and how do you figure that?
  5. 4eyedsueJanuary 3, 2012 at 10:12 pm
    The ACLU has ranked the possible 2012 Presidential candidates on civil liberties. Gary Johnson scored better than any of the other candidates, including Ron Paul and President Obama. As Gov. of New Mexico, Gary Johnson supported legislation that banned late term abortions and allowed parental notification for minors seeking an abortion, however, he supports a woman’s right to make a decision during the early stages of pregnancy, making him pro-choice. Ron Paul is not. Johnson believes in marriage equality, Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act.
  6. AlpinerJanuary 3, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    No Jeff, I support laws that make sense, always have. No one wants “no regulation”, we just do not want to be “over-regulated”. Historically, a strict “laissez-faire” attitude has always gotten us in trouble in the long run. Just as moving towards socialism denies individual freedom and brings trouble of its own.
  7. NateJanuary 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    Way to speak in vague non-specific terms…
  8. AlpinerJanuary 3, 2012 at 9:56 pm
    Please, history speaks for itself.
  9. ToddJanuary 3, 2012 at 2:35 pm
    The Anarcho-Capitalism model scares the crap out of me, yet it seems to be what all die-hard conservatives pine for… “let me have my money, I can do a better job than the government can!” being their battle cry. Yet I’m reminded of the story last year of the man who lived outside the boundary of the local fire-protection district, and who had lapsed in his payment to the privately held local fire fighting company (Rural-Metro, IIRC). Sure enough, as his house burned, he called for help and was told “sorry, your payment has lapsed.” Rural-Metro came out, protected his neighbor’s house (who HAD paid his fees) but watched his house burn. Sounds like its a winning plan!
  10. Jim FarleyJanuary 3, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    My BS-O-Meter is pegging Todd. This sounds like an urban myth. Prove up your case.
  11. Mr PerezJanuary 3, 2012 at 10:04 pm
    Maybe not to the degree Todd told, but there were two incidents in TN that occurred when the homeowner didnt pay the fire protection fee. http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/12/06/383580/tennesee-fire-fighters-family-home-burn/
  12. Capt. GeneJanuary 4, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    So essentially government screwed up. Is anyone really shocked?
  13. PreflyteJanuary 3, 2012 at 2:46 pm
    Good analysis. I used to think Ron Paul was just a crank. Now that I have read his newsletters, which catered to the militia and conspiracy crowd, and researched his policies, I know he is anti-American, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-education, and pro-corporation, and that is just for starters. Ron Paul made a lot of money off his Jim Crow newsletters, using race-baiting for power and profit. And if Paul was truly unaware of the content of his namesake newsletter, as he has claimed, what does that say about his basic competency?
  14. PetzJanuary 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm
    So Jeff finally gets up out of bed after “Christmas” to take a shot at Ron Paul and attempt to smear conservatives / free market advocates. The truth is that a lot of Dems are playing games with the Paul candidacy to introduce chaos mayhem and havoc into our nomination process. Jeff is just one of them.
  15. BertaJanuary 3, 2012 at 3:15 pm
    Jeff I am neither a Democrat or a Republican and Ron Paul scares the hell out of me. His misguided ideas, his lack of human values, his bigotry, foreign policy objectives, and the fact that so many young people are flocking to his agenda horrifies me. Thank God, he does not have a legitimate chance of becoming the Republican nominee!
  16. PetzJanuary 3, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    Was Ron Paul married by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
  17. Phil EllisJanuary 3, 2012 at 4:34 pm
    Perhaps “to.” That would be much more interesting.
  18. NateJanuary 3, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    Examples for all these charges? & I wouldn’t be so sure about counting him out of becoming the Republican nominee. He has been the most solid out of the field inspite of zero love from the media.
  19. MikeJanuary 3, 2012 at 5:12 pm
    Have you been living under a rock? May I suggest following @RP_Newsletter?
  20. NateJanuary 3, 2012 at 5:02 pm
    Jeff are we to judge all political view points by the extreme and practical, “If that position was allowed to run unchecked?” If we did this with Republicans or Democrats it would be equally as scarey.
  21. MikeJanuary 3, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    Republicans and Democrats run unchecked all over this country and we usually get something somewhere between “desirable” and “undesirable”. Say what you will about the major parties, but they are rooted in pragmatism. Libertarianism is a silly, amoral, selfish, untested fantasy.
  22. ScottEJanuary 3, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    Libertarian-ism is just another reason why I won’t vote for any of the SCV incumbents! They brought in an outside non-government entity to take over our Libertarys and then ignored the voice and opinion of the PEOPLE! I’m MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!
  23. NateJanuary 3, 2012 at 7:59 pm
    I am pretty sure you are never mad as hell about anything except the way Jeremiah has his handle bars on his bike.
  24. Mr PerezJanuary 3, 2012 at 10:06 pm
    You didnt have an issue sitting on those handle bars while Omar gave you a ride around the parking lot!
  25. The Venturan formerly known as NDJanuary 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm
    And words, left un-spellchecked, can also be quite “scarey.” … sorry, couldn’t resist
  26. Jim FarleyJanuary 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    Wapshot starts the article by calling Paul the “father of the Tea Party”. He immediately loses a lot of credibility there. Economic science is discrediting Keynesian theory as being the solution to the Great Depression. It wasn’t WWII that ended the depression either. A great book that delves into this is “New Deal or Raw Deal” by Burton Folsom. The Tea Party are not “Anarcho-Capitalists”. They simply want a return to what made this country great and an economic super power- Liberty. Bigger government is not the solution.
  27. The Venturan formerly known as NDJanuary 3, 2012 at 8:52 pm
    The problem, globalism, is here and is only increasing. The model that our Founding Fathers created worked great in relative isolation. Now, complete “liberty” (free trade) is working against us as our economic model favors efficiency. We’re just selling stuff to each other now, and we aren’t making that stuff. Once the construction trades (which temporarily replaced manufacturing) fizzled out, the tide went down and we were clearly lacking undergarments. I don’t have all the answers, but I think we need a stronger sense of nationalism and better transparency in the products we buy. Our society isn’t growing, our manufacturing sector is all but dead, and our education system is a laughing stock. Hell, the 24-35 set is less likely to have a high school diploma than the older folks. We have a massive problem. Further reducing the tax rate (currently the lowest in 6 decades) and eliminating regulations is a red herring.
  28. Phil EllisJanuary 4, 2012 at 8:18 am
    In today’s world, there is no such thing as free trade. Nor is there anything resembling an unregulated, free-market economy. I remember my college Econ professor using the term “Ceteris Paribus” meaning “all other things being equal.” That, too, is a non-existant condition.
  29. CCJanuary 3, 2012 at 8:31 pm
    Ron Paul is irrelevant. People like the idea of smaller government, but he is so extreme that the minute someone starts to get serious about him, they learn that they won’t ever see a SS payment, and suddenly, their vote changes.
  30. RNDDUDEJanuary 4, 2012 at 8:33 am
    Ron Paul doesn’t scare me, it’s the people who think he has the answer that scare me. Same goes for Bachman supporters. They just don’t pass the “smell test”, which in and of itself is not unusual, but the fact that so many people choose to not subject them to the test is what is troubling to me. Politics has always had it’s share of loonies, it just seems that now they are getting WAY to much traction, thanks to myopic supporters.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support