This seems to be less about how libertarianism failed but rather about how the relationship between investors failed. Very different things, right?
The relationship failed because of a lack of accountability. It's mentioned in the article that one of the investors does not even want to pursue legal action due to his ideology, in effect letting Johnson off scot-free. I think we can agree that this is a clear example of the frequent need of a third-party adjudicator in order to enforce honesty and reliability in transactions. Berwick is wealthy and so can afford the loss, but not everyone has a stable financial net to fall back on.Berwick is sticking to his libertarian principals and not taking part in any legal action against his former partner
I think we can agree that this is a clear example of the frequent need of a third-party adjudicator in order to enforce honesty and reliability in transactions.
In a society, if one person or one business frequently takes advantage of others, is it not true that this person will eventually not be able to find people to transact with? There can exist third party adjudicators in a libertarian society, can't there? I would think that starting a business as an "adjudicator" would be fine if the need exists. It's when govt forces adjudication that their panties get in a bunch. -Perhaps justly in many cases.
There's a lot of social detritus from this type of behavior though. Berwick lost a lot of money, but he's a rich, established investor engaging in out of country deals. Imagine if Madoff existed within this libertarian structure--all those savings would have been withheld from the scammees for the express reason "you should have known better." There are a lot of really exploitative business practices in this world that's populated with not too many business savvy individuals. When was the last time a friend tried to sell you on a pyramid scheme? There needs to be mandated adjudication/protection because not everyone can be an expert all the time. This adjudication needs to be impartial as well, and it's my belief (not fact) that a private third party adjudication system is too open to corruption and collusion because they, and no one else, would be the party determining guilt in business transactions.In a society, if one person or one business frequently takes advantage of others, is it not true that this person will eventually not be able to find people to transact with?
Sounds like they ran into zoning issues. D'oh! See also "Honduras Shrugged" about a similar effort in Central America, which has a list of other projects that met fates such as disabled by fire, sank in a hurricane, seized by neighbouring Tonga, dissolved back into ocean, and fundraising failed.
Independent of one's ideological leanings, zoning laws should offend the sensibilities of an average person. Perhaps one could imagine some zoning laws that could encourage growth and dynamism, but as far as I've seen in my metropolitan area, they have done much more to damage neighborhoods than to strengthen them, with the added bonus of ensuring kids can't do much outdoors in their spare time besides play in the yard. Walking to anything resembling commerce or common use public spaces is an absurd thought in the suburbs. Not that zoning is much better in cities, where they mainly serve to drive up rents and segregate rich and poor (and by extension black and white). All in the name of good governance.