Since Farnaby rejected medieval Ireland as his example of Utopia, I do realize it’s likely he will reject Somalia as well.
But I do wonder if he understands an example is needed. The fundamental objection to his utopian vision is that its existence is counter to human nature and common sense. Marxism postulated a Utopia, but that ideal is largely thought impossible in the real world. I think Farnabytopia is even more implausible than Marx’s Utopia but can’t be sure – Farnabytopia just makes no sense to me.
Farnaby envisions a society dominated by greedy, probably wicked players, regulated by private security forces and litigation institutes available to the highest bidder, and these private regulatory institutions will magically be incorruptible! (Or perhaps Farnaby acknowledges that such institutions will be for sale to the highest bidder, but in his Greed is Good, Market is God fantasy, that’s a good thing. :dubious: )
How about locking the exit doors from a factory and trapping people in a fire; is that a “regulatory violation”, or a crime of force? If it’s a crime, who organizes the force to oppose it?
That’s force, and laws against that would be permissible.
However, people who violate toilet bowl size, or have the audacity to produce an illegal lightbulb… Well, I don’t think any reasonable person would support someone going to jail or even being fined for such an act.
Until a building burns down because the illegal bulb catches fire. And the whole city goes with it because the for-profit fire department blew its entire budget on partying, and ran rather than actually fight a fire.
I’m referring to the ban on incandescent bulbs, which has been a farce based on bad science. And no, I’m not referring to the science of climate change, that’s sound science. I’m referring to the science of banning a product that is reliable in favor of other products which may or may not reduce our carbon footprint but we don’t know yet because the products haven’t been in use long and may create bigger environmental problems(like the mercury content of CFL bulbs).
A law is only as good as the enforcement. Do they have to wait until after the fire, or is the government authorized to look for such things in advance? Do they have to wait until such a violation is reported, or can they conduct inspections by surprise or as a matter of routine?
The assumption here, incorrect, is that preemptive regulation is effective. Businesses already have ample incentive to avoid having their property burn down, and a legal system that now allows the little guy to seek redress is an even more powerful incentive.
You’ll notice that businesses worry about lawsuits obsessively, while having a blase attitude towards regulation. Fines are nothing compared to lawsuits.
You said that such a law would be permissible. Are you now saying it couldn’t, or shouldn’t, be enforced?
For something with such powerful incentives against it, this sort of thing has happened. I’m sure the owner of that garment factory in Bangladesh would have made more money if his building had stayed standing, but it fell down anyway.
As for lawsuits, companies only worry about them to the extent that they will show up on the bottom line. If they think it’ll be cheaper to pay off a few victims than to fix a problem, they will let the problem go. Ask the family member of anyone killed in a Ford Pinto which they’d rather have; a settlement from a lawsuit, or their loved one still alive. It’s a poor form of redress.
Regulation is not 100% effective either. Even if enforced. Well, regulations are effective at one thing: eliminating cash poor competition. You’d think people would be suspicious when big businesses and professional cartels lobby for more regulation of their industries, but some are just gullible I guess.
I never said it was 100% effective. I just think that when done properly it has benefits that are worth the cost. Regulations should not be crippling, but there have been times and places that relied on purely economic motives and they didn’t always work out too well for some people. Such cases led to the regulations we have now, and they can be an improvement even if they’re not perfect.
But you seem to be trying to slither off the hook here. You’ve said that a law requiring unlocked fire doors would be permissible. How would you enforce that, and how would you pay for that enforcement?
Your implication was that fear of lawsuits or property loss aren’t 100% effective. Nothing is.
Allowing employees to file a criminal complaint of unlawful imprisonment would do wonders to focus employers’ minds.
Libertarians support fewer laws, but much more efficient enforcement of those laws. Whereas liberals support millions of laws, yet keep on letting people off easy for violating them. Unless they are people liberals don’t like, like CEOs.
The commons are available to all whether one pays taxes or not. If the commons requires a user fee and the person does not pay, then that would justify the use of force. However, if it’s a public park, many people use that public park without paying a dime of taxes.
“File a lawsuit and neither you nor any member of your family will work again. You’ll all starve to death as an example for the others.” - that’s what you really get by threatening a lawsuit in an unregulated business climate. At best; all libertarian handwaving aside it’s likely that they’d just have the complainer killed. We know because that’s what actually happens in places and times that corporations are allowed to do as they please.
Regulations are a tiny part of correcting the previous abuses that existed. Far more important were better access to the courts, organizing of workers, and the ending of trusts.
I’m going to back off a little here though, because I’m on shaky ground, and return to the place I stood at the beginning of this thread: taxation is force, or at least requires the use of force to enforce. Thus it is a necessary evil and should have to meet a high burden of justification.
The fact that taxes pay for many frivolous things, the idea that politicians would even consider appropriating taxpayer money for frivolous things, is an abomination given the lives ruined by taxation and its enforcement.
Taxation without representation is an abomination. Taxation WITH representation, not so much. Just because you hold any given expenditure to be frivolous does not make it so, and forcing you to pay taxes towards its support is not tyranny.
Except that’s a ridiculous standpoint. Taxation only ruins lives if its done wrong, its not an inherent aspect of taxation. And as the line goes, “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization”; no taxes or too low taxes definitely ruin lives.
Taxation is done wrong when it gets high enough that people go broke. You know, we had a nice thing going between the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Progressive era, when no one had to worry too much about their tax burden. Now we’re back to the days of tax collectors coming to collect the king’s taxes and taking your very livelihood in the process.
Of course, there is a way to have it all: tax all income and sales at a low rate, say 15%. Once you get above that it starts to become a major problem for most people. And they get behind, then they get in trouble, and then their lives go down the toilet when it catches up with them. And liberals that normally have so much compassion show no mercy to people for making THAT particular bad decision. Robbing liquor stores, getting addicted to drugs, failing to complete high school, why that could happen to anyone! But failure to pay taxes is unforgiveable!
