I’m most familiar with Thailand. Corruption is very high in Thailand. (If you think U.S. is comparably corrupt, I’ll want definitions and examples.) There are serious dangers one hardly sees in U.S. – several tourists died in a recently publicized case due to improper insecticide use. You seem to think that government regulations don’t help. You’re so hopelessly wrong on this point, it’s laughable.
Another Doper Extrematarian, Emacknight, made an argument very similar to yours, but with traffic safety instead of food safety, using India as his specific example. He went silent, tail between legs, when we posted a link to Wikipedia traffic fatality statistics.
Despite the huge levels of corruption, central government has improved in recent decades and I observe this as being distinctly a good thing. Taxes on rich urban people and companies have paid for huge infrastructure in rural areas. Most villages now have paved roads, electricity and running water, opposite to 25 years ago. This could not have been accomplished in a “libertarian” model without huge exploitation of the poor.
When I first visited Thailand, income inequality was striking and lamentable. It now has better Gini score than the U.S. (Yes, yes, I know your ilk argues that income inequality is, if anything, virtuous, but I’m addressing also rational thinkers who may be reading the thread.)
I did ask you a question which you failed to answer: What present-day country comes closest to your ideal? If the answer is “None” maybe you’ll think again on my comment that your Utopia is fantastic: it just doesn’t mesh with the way humans and institutions can and do operate in the real world.
In that case, government regulations didn’t help, did they? You said so yourself. They didn’t help because the government was corrupt. They “blessed” a certain level of insecticide use that actually killed people instead.
You keep trying to prove me wrong, and use smiley faces and “laughably wrong” language, but every argument you have brought up seemingly proves my point and not yours.
I actually don’t disagree that some regulation and oversight is required in certain areas. But I don’t want to blurt those out right now, because I think it’s important in this debate to clear away a bunch of the other misconceptions first.
I absolutely agree with the dangers in Thailand and other, lesser developed countries. You and I need to assess those dangers, and then make a decision to go, or not go, ourselves. Or eat, or not eat, food treated with insecticide in those places. We are in control of our fate.
We need the FDA and regulators to put those signs up in the first place, to make laws mandating certain health minimums like temperature of food warmers, and punishment for those who violate those standards. In short, we need regulations. Regulations are good for everyone except those who are so rich they can afford to drive out smaller competition by taking a hit to their profits.
:dubious:
It would be better if we can trust that those countries are upholding minimum standards of health, and have regulations that enforce and punish those minimums. Regulations, the law, and the FDA or a similar organization is good for everyone
I’m not making an assessment myself. I have neither the time, the authority, or the expertise to inspect and regulate all restaurants that I may attend in the future. I need some entity to do it for me, and do it for the public safety, one that is reliable and has the authority to punish those we flout the laws. I need the FDA, or a similar organization
In your libertarian world, the FDA wouldn’t exist, or they would be toothless. Its not up to me if I don’t even know if the restaurant is up to code, or if there are no codes to follow
I want to be forced to abide by their decision because I recognize that I don’t know everything, and I can’t do everything. I need people who are more learned to tell me what is and isn’t safe in a restaurant. I need people more capable and have more power than me to be able to shut down a restaurant I may eat in because its not safe for me. We all need people to watch over us. You are not an island. You are a grain of sand on the beachhead of the island that would be washed away by the waves if not for the existence of the island itself. I am arguing that where I cannot inspect the food, where I cannot know the specifics of what’s safe, where I do not know what chemicals can cause me harm, then I need the likes of the FDA to inspect it, tell me what’s safe, and prevent me from doing something like eating contaminated meat when I would have not known about it in the first place
And that, my friends…is that. In a nutshell. I quote above…
“I want to be forced…”
“…We all need people to watch over us…”
Yoiks. Egads. Zounds. Oh my.
Can I have your vote, then? In the next round of elections? Because you seem to want to revert to a feudal state where “somebody watches over you.”
That’s why people voted in Hitler. And supported the rise of Lenin and Stalin. And Mao.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll volunteer to watch over you. Deal? Give me your money, and your votes, and control over your life. I’ll make good decisions for you. I promise. Deal?
I’m going to bet your comment above really isn’t true. I hope to God it isn’t. I’m going to bet that in certain areas of your life…sexual behavior, choices about abortion, your choice in movies or electronic devices, alcohol or drug ingestion, something…you actually want the government to stay out. Way out.
But in other situations, where you are less sure of your choices, and more uncomfortable with the accountability that comes with those choices, you get afraid. You actually fear yourself. You don’t want the personal accountability that comes with making your own choices.
So you grab for the quick psychological sugar fix. You let somebody else make the decision for you. You sign over your rights. Then you can’t be held accountable for your own potential failure, can you? After all, it wasn’t your choice. You needed someone to force you to do it. You needed someone to watch over you.
It’s a human frailty as old as the species itself.
Hi, IdahoMauleMan. We both seem to agree that corrupt governments with weak regulations are bad. I used Thailand as an example of a country which has improved, to a degree, with better governance. You managed to completely reverse or ignore my meaning. I don’t have the time to explain this all again, point by point.
You comment that we have a choice of whether to visit Thailand. I’m not sure exactly what adjective to apply to that, but it would require a Pitting in any case. Hint: the Thai people don’t have a choice.
I do wish you’d get around to answering my question. Which existing country comes closest to your ideal? Stop your fruitless nattering and contemplate that. Give us a a clue what you’re talking about.
I know what you are. You are a mountain man. A gritty man. A real man’s man, who wears boots and works with his hands and needs only the clothes on his back and the wits in his head to survive. If you ever get lost, you don’t ask for directions, you look at the stars and remember your old naval training. You can build a fire from scratch, know which mushrooms are safe to eat at a glance, and know which animals to run from and which ones to play dead with. And that’s fine to aspire to. But you see, 99% of the people in the world aren’t like that, will never be like that no matter how much you wish them to, and I dare say many don’t want to be like that. That’s not a bad thing. Its just not my thing or theirs
It sounds bad to a guy like you, all independent and bootstrap-pulling to have to depend on others. But that’s what most of us do, and there’s nothing wrong with that, and indeed it makes life more pleasant to do so. And in the process of depending on other people, one does not have to learn useless extra skills and expend time and effort to learn about food safety temperatures, or spoilage storage rules. Instead I can learn the piano, or learn how to file my taxes, or play a game that gets me on TV and paid millions. You can go ahead and dream about the day when everyone is responsible for every single thing. I don’t want that dream, I don’t want to have to spend hours milking a cow for my milk, or watering plants for my salad, or cutting up my own pig for bacon. I want to depend on others because they are better at it than I am, and know more, and have the expertise.
It is not a bad thing to have to rely on other people. The world’s complicated, get used to it, the US will never be the type of country where you can live and die within 5 miles of your birthplace and know everything you need to know from your parents. But you think that makes you some kind of ideal, that you can do this by yourself? Why waste your time? I want to rely on others, I don’t want to have to inspect my own food. And I know that the majority of people believe this way, and are better off for it, because not having to do that frees them up to do things they actually want, not things they have to do to survive.
So you can keep pretending that you represent some kind of ideal state, but the rest of us know better. The rest of us is glad that that world is no more, and that a government can take care of some of the everyday chores of our lives. In return, we simply cede some control over ourselves to the government. Its no different from a child obeying a parent because they know better, or respecting an authority because they have the expertise. I am very sad that you think the way you do, and hope you never get to put your beliefs into practice. Its no vice to rely on others
We all have somebody watching over us (no, not god). No man is an island, and your life is affected by many people who you will never meet or read about. But the difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that reality and embrace it. You seem to think that if just one person has power over you, its a pox. There is a middle ground here, between your position and a mouse in a maze. I am closer to that middle ground than you, but you are off the tangent so badly you can’t see straight
And that’s why people voted in Washington. And Lincoln. And gave their support to FDR and Gandhi and MLK Jr., because there are those who do share our vision and are much more capable than ourselves to achieve that goal. Good goals, like desegregation and equality of the races. And freedom from a tyrannical king. And independence from an empire. All these men and women are voted in by people like me and like you with the express purpose of giving them the power to do what we alone cannot by ourselves, cannot inspire because we don’t have the charm, and cannot act because we’ve not the strength. Yes it can be abused, but if you look at the arc of the world bending towards justice even now, I can point out to you that things are moving in the right direction. It is no great vice then give up your power and throw your support behind those who can achieve greatness that you cannot do so alone
Your views are opposed to mine and you are incapable of inspiring even one person on a message board. I see no reason why you deserve power just because you ask. I trust the government, yes all of its benefits and negativity, vainglorious accomplishments, more than yours, who profess a selfish and small viewpoint, one that cannot see that there are others living in society with him though he reaps the benefits from the greatest instrument of human networking ever built. You deserve none of my money, nor following because you would simply pocket it and move on. I want someone to fight for my benefits, and the benefits of my neighbors, who is accountable to me and my vote and my money. You are not that person or entity. Nor do you possess the expertise to shield me from life’s ills.
As you have made the classic mistake of libertarian foibles, that of a singular dichotomy of viewpoints, I cannot help you further. I don’t think you’ll listen, nor understand, that there is a different stance between total freedom and complete authoritative control, and that difference isn’t one middle but many, an infinite number, the likes of which would boggle your mind. Try to imagine both control and non-control existing in society. Take it from there. Maybe in a few years, you’ll understand where I’m coming from, and realize your black and white view of the world is more suited for a monochrome picture than honest debate. If you acknowledge that, maybe this conversation will go somewhere
It is true, there is an element of fear in what I do. I fear that I do not know which chemicals I can ingest without harm. I fear that the toys I buy for my kids may be tainted with poison. I fear that the water I bath in may give me rashes, or the microwave I use inundates me with radiation. All this I am afraid, and yet I am not. For I know that for each of my worries, there is, at some point, somewhere, someone has done the work to make sure that this doesn’t happen to me, or my wife, my kids, my parents, my dog, my friends, or even you, resident message board libertarian. I am afraid that all of us may be harmed, yet I am thankful that generally we’re not. And we’re protected because of the existence of entities like the FDA, whose job it is to make sure we don’t have to worry that the hot dog from a stand we buy isn’t going to be our last, or the eye drops we use for dry eyes doesn’t make us blind, or the car we drive has working brakes. I am afraid, yet I am not, because the government exists to protect us whether we want it or not. And I assure you that most of us want it, and it is good
Unlike you, I am capable of exercising what remains of my freedoms. I take responsibility for that. If I knowingly eat at a restaurant where they’ve gotten a C, and read the details of the violations online, then that is my cross to bear. If I go pick wild mushrooms and eat them without having them checked out first, my illness is my own. But if I am living amongst people in a society run by a government, then I want them to do the dirty work of making sure the roads I drive on isn’t going to crack open into a big hole. Or the bridge I cross isn’t going to fall. Or the restaurant I go to doesn’t have substandard health practices. Maybe some of that is laziness, maybe I do need some force to do it, but there is nothing wrong with that. Each of us will live an average of 70-80 years. That’s a long time to be testing the water you drink, or the food you eat. We are not diminished because someone else does it for us
Thanks for responding. I appreciate your posts. You’re the only one left saying anything worthwhile.
I don’t understand the Pitting comment. But let’s forget about it for the moment.
There are no countries that comes closest to my perfect ideal. Probably the USA or Canada comes closest. There are certain parts of Africa that I liked a lot due to their lack of regulation in certain areas. Hong Kong and even southern China are interesting in many respects.
But does it matter? Sorry to answer a question with question. But really, does it matter?
Suppose one country is 80% of what I want, but is trending in the wrong direction. Suppose one is only 60% of what I want, but is trending in a positive direction. Suppose there are elements of countries A, B and C that I like and I wish they could all come together.
It’s probably a combination of all of those.
Seriously, does it matter? There are elements of the USA that were wonderful 30 years ago, but increased regulation is strangling them to death. General aviation is one example. So I suppose in that case, I would answer “The USA 30 years ago for general aviation.”
Does that answer your question?
Do you see my FDA and restaurant example, by the way? Do you see how your own experience, in your own life, proves my point? I hope so.
If not, I can back up and start again. You also claim something about the poor Thai’s not having a choice. If you want to hop in there, we can do so as well.
I would start by saying that the poor Thai’s average standard of living is probably comparable to someone in the USA around the mid-19th century. The same could be said for many countries in Africa. I might be off by +/- 30 years or so, but it’s probably in the ballpark.
The USA’s standard of living and overall wealth has increased considerably since then. How? How has that happened? What lessons can we glean from that?
Thanks for your reply, IdahoMauleMan. I’m afraid we’ll need better structure and definitions before we can debate reasonably. I may be conflating your ideas with those of other Libertarians. I do repeat my suggestion that Libertarians start their own thread to understand their own differences, and let us know what we’re debating against. In an earlier thread, one Libertarian posted a link to a Libertarian Party platform in response to that query, as though it were my own Googling skills to blame. I skimmed the platform – only a few paragraphs – and queried back about the privatised banknotes or some such which he was surprised to learn about :smack: . (Yes, this does seem unbelievable; I’ll track down the thread if you doubt.)
We can agree on platitudes (good regulations are good, but bad regulations are bad), or debate strawmen. (I could caricature you as inferring that some government officials are corrupt; therefore all are; therefore government should be abolished. But that a mishmash of private insurance companies and polices will not be corrupt because of the Godlike Powers of the Free Market™. I’d invite you to skim all the way ahead to Chapter 2 in your next econ text where they discuss barriers, delays and other inefficiencies.)
The gap between privileged and underclasses increases by default in the modern world; most countries implement some social safety net. What is the Libertarian position on this? Don’t tell me now; come to a consensus among yourselves in the Libertarian-platform thread.
General aviation would seem a detour to learn about and discuss. I thought we’d chosen food safety as our example. Surely you’d agree food safety is more important?
Standard of living is hard to define, but Thais have antibiotics, adequate food, longevity, cell phones, and social and health systems which, while very crude compared with the developed world, are much better than 19th century; thus I think you’re way off. Corruption is a big problem, but this can be blamed on weak governance more than on strong governance.
We both seem to agree that the U.S. does well but could be improved. Many of the improvements you mention (cleaner air, less poverty) are due to government regulations. Further improvements could be achieved with further regulations. Good regulations, not bad regulations.
Ah! But that’s exactly what I want to discuss! I just want to clear out all of the other nonsense first, so we can focus on where there is true grey area.
I pushed hard on some of the other “debaters” because, in my experience, 99.9% of the Anti-Libertarian crowd ends up showing their true colors in one of 3 ways
W1. I actually don’t want freedom. I’m afraid to admit it, but I don’t. I’m afraid of making my own choices and the responsibility that comes with them. Well, except for marijuana-smoking and watching dirty movies. But when it comes to signing an insurance contract, getting the water pump fixed in my car, or buying aspirin in a Rite-Aid, I want somebody to tell me what to do.
It’s better if it’s someone in a big, white marble building in Washington, D.C., because that infuses me with a sense of awe and wonderment.
I’d say about 50% of the debaters end up in this camp. Oh, and they also usually start throwing in a few lines about “the rich” and such as the debate goes on. You can see that even in this thread.
That’s because they are the garden-variety class warfare victim-status group. They are envious and contemptous of people who are more successful than they, but when pushed hard end up admitting that they want other people to make decisions for them.
Pretty standard stuff. The Democratic Party has a field day with these types. So did Lenin.
Search for Sam Stone’s “Libertarian/Fringe” thread and the FDA thread from about 2 years ago for more references to the above.
W2. Companies are evil. They are run by evil, rich white men who twirl their mustaches as they try to cut costs and kill their customers. I think most of them are Republicans. Oh, and they probably go to church a lot, too.
In fact, if it wasn’t for the government, Boards of Directors of lawnmower companies would probably be plotting right now to loosen the blades of their lawnmowers to kill their customers. Isn’t that obvious to everyone?
I’d say about 25% of the group is in this bucket. You can search the “Libertarian/Fringe” thread to find examples of this.
W3. Yes, IdahoMauleMan, I see your point about the FDA. But that only proves we need more government, andmore FDA inspectors, to solve our problems. Every problem that exists out there can be solved by more government.
About 25% ends up in this group.
But you, Mr Septimus, are finally getting to some of the good stuff. I still think you’re a little off-base on why wealth is created, new innovations come to market, and standards of living increase.
As for your points above…
I don’t believe this. Sorry. I actually think it’s the other way around.
The only way masses of people do not work to improve their fate in a free-market economy under the equal application of the rule of law, is if there are structural imbalances backed up by the use of force. The 100s of millions of Chinese who are lifting themselves out of squalid poverty as we speak, are evidence to that.
So was the massive increase in the standard of living and wealth of average Americans from about 1870 to 1920. The government was a tiny, tiny fraction of the economy then.
The flows of people to the factories in Southern China from the countryside, as well as the massive amounts of immigration to the USA in the time period above (as well as the 1990-2005 economic boom period) is evidence that people are voting with their feet, to go where the best opportunities are. I seriously doubt they give a hoot about somebody saying “Yes! Go there to improve your lot. It’s all because of government regulation!”
It’s because of jobs and opportunity.
You are correct. I screwed up and said “19th century” when I meant “1900s”. My bad.
And modern antibiotics and cellphones arose from…government regulation?
I’ll address these since they were in response to me:
#1: I don’t think that Libertarians (and I’m not one) speak to morality, just law. They would all condemn leaving someone to die. Further, the higher priced hotel rooms would keep away the people looking for a place to party, leaving rooms open to people who need it IN AN EMERGENCY. Sure, grandma might now be able to afford $400 night on a regular basis, but with panic setting in, she can surely come up with it; maybe even charge her insurance company for it as a medical necessity, and then the hotel owner knows he will get paid.
#2 I wouldn’t be there to be shot because I wouldn’t pay 4 X market value if I didn’t really need the generator. Further, if there was no “price gouging” there wouldn’t be any generators to get shot over.
I’m not saying that Libertarianism is perfect. Far from it. But price controls create a rush to the services with no regard to need. First come first serve and it that situation the man with the gun likely wins. And the owner of the product doesn’t care. He’s going to sell out of his goods in short order and after the first hour, nobody has anything.
And the most important point is that nobody will come in to provide anything more because their expenses to provide things in the immediate aftermath of a disaster exceed their costs at normal market value. Nobody gets anything.
That’s nonsense. I see “let them die” responses from libertarians on a regular basis.
Not in a libertarian society. In such a society, if the partiers have more money that makes them innately superior and more worthy of life than someone with less.
Or she won’t be able to; and what makes you assume that some grandma is a libertarian society will have insurance, or that an insurance company could reliably be expected to pay out?
That makes no sense.
Which is why you don’t relay on the stupid free market in emergencies. You don’t have anyone selling generators, you have government emergency services handing them out or providing emergency shelter.
No, it is not. Of course, “lightly regulated” is a relative and somewhat loaded term.
I picked general aviation of 30 years ago because I think it is an excellent example of when there (once was) proper regulation. Actually, the pinnacle of the agency’s effectiveness was probably in 1956 after the Grand Canyon collision.
I will leave it to you to figure out why. Believe me, it’s a far cry from the rent-seeking behavior and the “somebody might be mean to me, so pass a law against it” drivel that is usually posted here.
Your choice of 30 years ago is strange to pick for an example of an appropriate level of regulation, considering that regulation of the industry was in a rapid flux during that period. Airlines only started setting their own fares 30 years ago, and deregulation was continuing. The industry has done a fine job of strangling itself with predatory fare pricing. Regulation propped up airlines that a free market would have killed off as weak by setting inflated fares. In today’s market, companies are willing to take a loss strategically to hurt competitors if it will net them a long term gain. You can certainly argue that the market has benefited fliers, but I think the cutthroat industry is the reason airlines struggle.
How do you see the government choking the industry to death?
I’ll agree that SDMB discussions on Libertarianism get sidetracked by peculiar arguments. But your latest post is an example of this problem, not its solution. The excerpts above show that you are most comfortable making up strawmen to argue against. In this thread have I ever offered or implied an opinion on “why[sic] wealth is created,” or about antibiotics arising from regulations, etc.???
It’s fun to invent strawmen to argue with; you can make them as stupid as you like to maximize hilarity. Include me out.
And yes, there are certainly trends moving in opposite directions over that time period. Deregulation of routes and fares was undoubtedly a good thing.
Increasingly burdensome requirements that mandate new equipment, that will make GA more expensive and less accessible are a starter.
Increasingly burdensome requirements that restrict the entry of new equipment that is cheap, accessible right now, and could actually make flying more safe is another.
The FAA used to have a dual mandate of promoting aviation whilst ensuring safety. We can argue about how well that translated into the daily life of the agency, but I liked that in theory because it posited a tradeoff between benefits and risks. That’s an underlying point that I am trying to emphasize throughout this thread. 99.9% of the posters seem to want regulation because it might prevent something “bad” from happening, somewhere. Like the water-in-the-desert example. What they don’t balance that against is how regulation creates deadweight loss because it prevents good things from happening. But since most people can’t envisage the absence of good things happening, they misunderstand that point.
And I don’t believe the “predatory pricing” point above, where companies will take a short term loss to reap a long-term gain. You seem to contradict yourself above by stating that isn’t actually happening, and that the airlines are in trouble. I actually agree with that. But how can that be, if they are after “long term gains”?
I think the airlines are in trouble because of overcapacity, poor management and unionization. Pretty standard stuff in capital-intensive industries that have historically been coddled by protective barriers and lack of innovation. See: the Big Three Auto makers, steel and fixed-line telecommunications for other examples.
Now you lost me, again. If you want to keep trying I’m still here.
I still don’t quite understand what you are arguing against. We seem to be in agreement on a lot of things. Then you bring up a point that gets me scratching my head, because you seem to be agreeing with me.
These aren’t meant to be strawmen. If you want to keep trying, I’ll try and move the needle on the debate by throwing out a few new arguments that might re-energize the discussion.
My misunderstanding here is what confused me so much. I heard “aviation” and “30-years” and immediately thought of airlines, when you’re talking about civilian (i.e. non-industry) operation. I’m not as familiar with general aviation and will drop the tangent.
for a full 45 minute episode, which recently came on line and is outstanding. Highly enjoyable and entertaining. ACI is about the only worthwhile new program as far my opinion goes.
This was back when the FAA (which was called the CAB at the time) had a dual mandate of promoting aviation and safety.
The things I like about this form of regulation are:
Incentives are aligned with private sector initiatives to create wealth and provide benefits to consumers - the regulatory agency is not merely there to say “No” to things that might be unsafe
Negative externalities associated with a “commons” to the public - in this case, airspace
Problem-solving the issue by putting some basic, simple rules of the road in place for managing the commons. Or in this case, the sky. This didn’t involve launching a huge amount of inspectors, or police, or default “No” answers to everything, or taxing authorities, or anything like that.
The CAB could have taken the point a step further and outsourced the operation to a private company after some years, like Canada has done with their ATC. Or like how the FAA has done recently with Flight Service functions, by outsourcing them to Lockheed Martin.
But overall, not a bad job. And not ridiculously expensive, in the grand scheme of things. The private sector - meaning both the industry and the consumers - were happy to play along. Choice and voluntary transactions between consenting parties were not appreciably reduced.
