# Libertarian Islands **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928 "2011-08-16T18:20:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928/161 "2011-08-21T22:43:58Z")
Quoth **emacknight** : > [@](#): > > Even with regulations, all the regulations you can imagine, and then some, even the most perfect of all regulations, how is the government/regulator going to _prove_ it was your arsenic in the water? That’s the point: Either way, they can’t, but with the regulations, they don’t have to. You’re dumping arsenic? You get in trouble for it, whether it’s seeping onto your neighbors’ property or not. And what do Sunday business laws have to do with anything? Even if we stipulate that that’s a stupid regulation, so what? Just because one regulation is stupid doesn’t mean they all are. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928/162 "2011-08-27T20:32:09Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Did you even read what I wrote? Go back and read it again, you didn’t seem to comprehend. I’m going to walk you through your little story to show you all the things that had to happen for that regulation to keep sand out of your clam: > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > A small company downslope owned the rights to seed and harvest clams on the sandy foreshore. Great clam habitat - fairly rare beach for this particular area. They made about 100k a year off this beach. They noticed the logging going on uphill and thought “What in holy hell are they doing?” They reported the company to the officials responsible for enforcing the rule/regulation/law/request. First, someone has to notice that the regulation is being violated. This is the _busybody_ factor. And in this case the clammer had to know the logger wasn’t supposed to be there. Otherwise you need little government agents roaming the hillsides checking the slope of every logging operation. Notice here that it might not have been the clammers that reported it, but instead a rival logging company. And note also that regulation might not have been violated. If you are a rival logger, or a pissed off clammer, regulations are a great way to screw with your competition. California tried this by having people call in to report drunk drivers, instead people called in to report people that pissed them off. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > There’s a forestry regulation that says you cannot harvest trees on a slope that exceeds a certain percentage How sure are we that percentage is correct? Specialists say one number, environmentalists say another, logging industry says a third. Government law makers have to pick something that strikes a balance. Is 21 really the best age to start drinking? Is 55mph really the safest speed for a stretch of road? Did a group of geniuses get together and decide that Sunday was the best day to ban shopping and alcohol purchases? The slope in question might have been below the regulation and still caused a slide, then what? > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > A particular large landowner and corporation figured "Fuck it, these regulations are bogus. Here’s the most crucial point. We get some fat monocle wearing, cigar smoking, overpaid CEO, sitting in his corner office, thousands of miles away. He looks at the balance sheets and decides to ignore the regulation, so he passes that down the chain. Everyone below him, all the way down to the guy with the chainsaw, also has to violate the regulation. Notice that in your story, everyone was okay with . No one had the integrity to walk off the job, or report to the regulatory authority. To them, a pay check was more important than the environment, but how many of them are held accountable? > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > We’re in the boondocks and nobody will care what we do. We’re going to cut these valuable trees down on the land we own." > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > In the face of this regulation and the certain financial hit, and the knowledge they were being watched - they stopped work. Theses statements are at odds with each other. And notice that it’s simply luck that the “financial hit” was high enough to stop them. Otherwise they might have just logged it anyways and paid the fine. That what retailers in Toronto did when they wanted to open on boxing day. The profit potential far out weighed the regulatory downside. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Later that year when the rains hit, the logged slope collapsed, sending tons of rock, trees and rubble down onto the beach below, rendering about 10% of it useless Okay, so going forward, 10% loss is considered a functioning and acceptable regulation. So if the beach was used by sunbathers, 10% could die. 10% of bridges can fall. 10% of terrorists can get through security. 10% of wells can be poisoned. That’s the gold standard you’ve set. So when bitching and complaining about what might happen without regulations, you’ll need to show that it will actually be worse than 10% failure. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > for clam production for the forseeable future (probably several decades minimum until the beach can build up again). Remediation of the beach was logistically and financially impossible due to the remote nature of the location,and the fact that environmental damage is near impossible to fix. Impossible to fix. Like death, and bridges, you treat these regulations as if they’re 100% effective, knowing full well they aren’t, they are only 90%. That section of beach is ruined, and your regulations allowed that to happen. Instead of bothering with an effective system, you chose the half-assed version that that let 10% of the beach get destroyed, and a company get fined. Congrats, maybe stop helping. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Luckily though, they were able to remain in business because 90% of the beach was OK. This was because the large forestry company was stopped by the bureaucrats and their regulations. Stopped for now. Was the company shut down? Was the CEO executed? Did the loggers lose their license to log? Or was it simply a fine? Now, without regulations, this can play out three ways: 1. A busybody notices that action A might lead to effect B, so they go to a judge and ask for an injunction until it can be decided the area should be logged. And just like in your scenario this is what happens: > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The company was contacted and told to cease and desist immediately or face a large fine. 1. The company logs the shit out of the area and destroys the entire beach, ruining the other guy’s business. He goes to court and: > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The small clam company did manage after many, many years in the courts to get some compensation out of the large forestry company for the 10% of the beach that was ruined. But if the CEO and various employees can’t hide behind corporate personhood, they are a lot more likely to take things like this seriously. For each logger involved, the possibility that he might face criminal actions would hopefully be enough to keep him from participating. 1. One of the loggers falls in love with one of the clammers, and together they launch a military campaign to save the sacred beach. Turns out to be box office gold. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928/163 "2011-08-27T20:36:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **emacknight** :That’s the point: Either way, they can’t, but with the regulations, they don’t have to. You’re dumping arsenic? You get in trouble for it, whether it’s seeping onto your neighbors’ property or not. You missed the point. How do you prove that they dumped arsenic? And what happens when the revenue the government makes from the arsenic dumper is so high that they’re okay with a few people getting poisoned? You do know there is arsenic in cigarettes right? And the government loves the tax revenue. > [@Chronos](#): > > And what do Sunday business laws have to do with anything? Even if we stipulate that that’s a stupid regulation, so what? Just because one regulation is stupid doesn’t mean they all are. And just because one regulation is good doesn’t mean they all are. Sunday business laws have everything to do with any discussion on regulation because it shows that the government isn’t looking out for your well being, unless people get poisoned while shopping on Sundays. But that’s a law on the books that is hell to get removed. As is a drinking age of 21, and all the bullshit surrounding the war on drugs. It looks more like the government is a blind squirrel that eventually finds a nut. And you guys are so happy with that nut you forget how many rocks it brought back. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928/164 "2011-08-27T20:49:25Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > 1. One of the loggers falls in love with one of the clammers, and together they launch a military campaign to save the sacred beach. Turns out to be box office gold. With a suitable title using the words “wood” and “clam”, it can’t miss! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928/165 "2011-08-28T18:10:25Z")
> [@](#): > > You do know there is arsenic in cigarettes right? Of course I know that. There’s everything in everything. Now, care to make a statement about quantities? Because I’m pretty sure that you’ll find that there are regulations that list a maximum amount of arsenic allowable in cigarettes. Not that it really matters that much, mind you, since it’s insignificant compared to the nicotine and other poisons that are also in cigarettes. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928/166 "2011-08-29T04:09:21Z")
So if the Libertarian Island happened to be off the east coast and is now in hurricane-smashed and flood-inundated ruins, what happens? ---
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928/167 "2011-08-29T16:58:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So if the Libertarian Island happened to be off the east coast and is now in hurricane-smashed and flood-inundated ruins, what happens? They pull themselves out of the mud by their bootstraps, each and every one. None o’ this socialistic community organizing or guvmint aid for the likes of them! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-islands/592928.md?page=8)