[QUOTE=IdahoMauleMan]
I still think you’re a little off-base on why wealth is created, new innovations come to market, and standards of living increase…
[/QUOTE]
I expressed no opinion whatsoever in this thread about “why wealth is created, new innovations come to market, and standards of living increase.” You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. Can you understand why that is annoying?
I’m not sure what we’re debating either. If you want to start a new thread in which you lay out your “platform” I may comment on my agreements and disagreements.
Please do understand that many “Libertarians” seem very very silly. They keep repeating "free markets lead to innovations; why can’t you understand that?" We do understand that. But we also go beyond one-solution-fits-all sophomoric ideation.
Civil aviation is relatively unimportant compared with recent financial crises and their trillion-dollar costs. When you start the new thread, begin by discussing government banking regulation as it relates to the problems of 2007-1009.
I am trying to put words in your mouth. Because I don’t think you understand. But you seem pretty smart, and capable of understanding, so I’ll keep trying.
You don’t have to post. But I hope you read.
Why would you want to regulate something? Why is it important? Because as soon as you do, you have reduced the amount of voluntary transactions that can occur in a marketplace.
Regulation means that somewhere, 2 parties will not be able to come together and consummate a voluntary transaction to which they would have both agreed.
The water in the desert example
The FDA not allowing a drug to come to market, that some people are willing to ingest
A restaurant that could serve food to a customer, in absence of an FDA inspection
An airplane that could use a highly accurate handheld GPS to shoot an approach into an airport
Regulation, or the introduction of regulation, means that the government will come into the examples above and say “No”. No. “No Mr. Seller” and “No Mr. Buyer”, you may not come together and consummate that transaction.
You may argue that has benefits, since it could prevent a bad thing from happening. Somebody might not take a drug that could kill them. Somebody might not each at a restaurant that could poison them. Somebody might not use an inaccurate GPS that could vector them into a mountain.
That’s the argument that 99.9% of the people will make.
But what they miss is…what COULD happen? What could happen that could create positive benefits for somebody? How could wealth, productivity, and quality of life increase for somebody if it COULD happen?
A drug could be used years before final FDA approval, and save lives.
A small businessperson could open a profitable restaurant and serve happy diners, whilst providing for their family.
A pilot could fly much more safely than he does today, with an apparatus that is much cheaper than FAA-approved devices.
That’s what everybody misses. That’s my point, Mr Septimus. That is why you get frustrated (and use caps and large font) and I keep banging away on this point.
Regulation prevents good things from happening. It prevents innovation from getting to the marketplace faster. It prevents me from eating where I want, or buying the type of automobile I prefer. It adds costs. It creates a massive federal bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing, and adds to yours and my tax burden.
And it isn’t even necessary! That’s the point I was trying to prove with your Thai FDA restaurant example, and with the $10s of billions of transactions on Ebay. Those examples are right in front of your face. They create value for you and for others. They add wealth and enjoyment to your life. And they prove that you don’t need an FDA! Or a Consumer Products Safety commission. Or an FTC.
Don’t you see?
The whole point of our existence is to improve our lot, and the lot of others. To do that we need choices and opportunity. Regulation removes choices and opportunity. Backed up by use of force. And paid for with our own money. Libertarians argue that there better damn well be a good reason for it. A high bar of proof. And if there is none, it should never be allowed in the first place.
As long as you want to take everything to the extreme… why is it that your kind doesn’t spend every waking hour and every cent of your personal wealth to help others?
This example has nothing to do with Libertarianism, or any ism for that matter. It’s a Rorschach test, adding the term “libertarianism” simply seeded people’s thought process with that particular bias. As a result people responded in exactly the way you’d expect.
Notice that the first step people use is to demonize Person B so that they can justify their preconceived notions? And of course, you have to make Person A a victim. Demon vs victim sure makes everything easy.
I read it as Person A is a drug addict. Go back and re-read it with that in mind and see how that influences your thought process. And notice how everyone made the same assumptions about how much wealth Person A has? Everyone here assumed it was some middle class schmo with a house an car:
The cost of that the rescue could far exceed all of his “property and money” making your system much, much worse. Who remembers Operation Eagle Claw? How much do you think that cost?
And notice that everyone assumed the rescue was easy for Person B, that it has negligible costs, and is without any inherent risk. This exact scenario plays out frequently for climbers trying to summit Everest, most notably in 2006 when an estimated 40 climbers passed a dying British mountaineer, David Sharp. Attempting a rescue puts the other climbers at risk. So what I see on this message board are a lot of armchair moralists demanding that Person B to put his/her life at risk.
So read the OP again but this time consider that Person A was told repeatedly that the desert is dangerous. Told repeatedly that weather can change so take extra supplies. Told repeatedly that rescue may not be possible, and that if it happens it’s going to be expensive. Offered the option to buy insurance. And consider that rescue puts Person B’s life at risk.
You are wrong about this. The situation you describe has two entirely separate actions involved:
Mandatory health inspections.
Government monopoly of health inspectors.
Now, watch how we can change either of those independently such that you would still have a score in the window. First we could make health inspections voluntary, allowing individual restaurants to choose if they want a government inspection. If they do they can put up the score. If they don’t they can’t, and then you the consumer can choose if you want to get food poisoning at an inspected restaurant or at an uninspected one. Which would you choose?
Secondly, we could keep mandatory inspections but allow restaurants to choose who they want to be inspected by. It could be the local health authority, or one of the private companies that exist such as Steritech. Restaurants would get to choose which they prefer, and then put up the corresponding score in the window indicating who inspected them. You the consumer could they choose if you want to get food poisoning from the government or from a private company. Which would you choose?
We could also allow both options, so a restaurant can choose if it gets inspected and by who. You the consumer can choose which you’d prefer. That’s really all there is to it. From this point you could make the argument that businesses aren’t going to choose the health department, so you don’t really get a choice. On the other hand businesses might also feel that since you only want government inspections that they don’t get a choice.
We already do with pretty frequently in the food industry. The label of USDA Organic being on example where you as a consumer can choose organic vs non. And the producers can choose to make something organic or non. If they want the label they get a government inspection. There are currently a lot of farmers growing organicly that don’t bother with the government process yet people willingly choose them, why?