That’s simply wrong on all counts. Rand isn’t the only libertarian author. Yes, the market should be as free as possible, but a totally free market isn’t possible. Human foibles and excesses get in the way, and a government is needed to cope with that. As for the unfortunate being left to rot, there’s this thing called charity. Which is another form of insurance.
Besides, for my own account, I believe in a strong social safety net, starting with UHC and education.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
No. The answer is supposed to be that independent standards agencies (like the Snell Foundation that used to certify helmets, or UL listings for electrical products) will spring up and provide these services.
Of course, some less scrupulous vendors will no doubt sell uncertified food products at lower price, but you’ll be free to pay more for the assurance you won’t get salmonella poisoning. Assuming you can afford to pay more.
That’s what I thought.
So where does the ultimate accountability lie? Suppose someone I know is poisoned by an ill-prepared fish. How would I know it had happened; will there be an autopsy that can identify the source of a pathogen? Do I have to initiate a criminal or civil case against them? What records would they be required to keep of their food-handling procedures, and who would enforce that requirement? If they can be deemed accountable, what’s to stop the principals from disolving a company with a bad track record and starting up a new one?
And all those same questions can be applied to the independent standards agency, too. If someone gets sick after eating something with their stamp of approval, what’s the recourse?
It seems to me that by the time we’re done answering all those questions, we’ve rebuilt the same apparatus that the libertarians are so keen to tear down.
It’s not a form of insurance at ALL - insurance is where you pay small amounts over time to ensure that you will not be floored by otherwise flooring unpredictable rare events. Charity, on the other hand, is a way for people to pretend they’re doing something for the poor without having to pay enough to actually do it. The only reason to oppose cumpulsory systems of charity (aka paying for it with taxes) is because you want to skip out on the bill.
You want a strong social safety net, with UHC and education? Sounds pretty socialist to me.
Yes; attempting to defend libertarianism by saying you support such highly un-libertarian things may make you a better person, but it’s not a good defense of libertarianism. More the opposite.
Pre-China controlled Hong Kong is generally one of the few real examples I’ve heard. Other than that, I don’t believe there has ever been a real libertarian nation, except in fiction or philosophic writings. At least, unlike Communism, Libertarianism have never had it’s shot at actually getting adopted, and completely fucking up and destroying the nations that attempted to badly adopt it…so, Libs can at least still dream about how it COULD work, if only they had the chance to try. Communists, sadly, can only whine about how no one REALLY did it correctly, and how it could have worked, if only…
-XT
I imagine not. They would require these powers if there was reason to believe that a particular plant was not fulfilling its legal obligations, but merely being in business would probably not be sufficient reason.
How do you know all of those things are being done today - correctly - by a government agency? How do you hold them accountable if their risk/reward profile of service doesn’t match with your desires?
How do you make decision about where, and how, to eat when you visit Mexico, or India, or the Seychelles, and order food in a restaurant?
If a celebrity endorses a hair product or an electronic device or a brand of beer, and you buy it, and then it doesn’t turn out to be so great, what do you do? Do you decide to sue them? My guess is ‘No’.
My guess is that for all of the decisions you make in your life, you incorporate the information at your disposal, weigh the risks against the potential reward, and make a decision accordingly. And then live with the consequences of that decision. You do this all the time. It’s obvious you don’t even realize that you are doing it, from the tone of your post.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Many non-Libertarians argue that libertarianism DID have its shot at actually getting adopted in the post-Civil War, pre-antitrust, pre-FDA, pre-OSHA, pre-Glass-Steagal, pre-FLSA USA.
Seems to me that Libertarians and Communists are largely in the same boat on this one. Their opponents say “We already tried what you’re recommending, didn’t like it, forget it”, and they respond “But you didn’t REALLY try it the RIGHT way and it COULD have worked, if only…” Communists and Libertarians will never agree with their opponents on what counts as REALLY implementing communism and libertarianism, respectively.
Yes, but consider what information I currently have. I know that there exists an organization that establishes safe handling procedures for food, and record keeping for same. This organization periodically inspects food processing plants to make sure those procedures are being met, and can bring legal sanctions if not. When a mistake is made and tainted food does reach consumers, this organization can identify the source and force corrective measures. And this organization answers ultimately to me, not to any shareholders seeking a profit.
So how could I gather that same information in a libertarian world? For every trip to a restaurant or grocery store, I’d have to ask for the whole distribution chain back to the original farmer or rancher, then pull out a PDA and spend an hour researching every distributor or their certifying agency for evidence that they knew how to handle food safely.
And even that wouldn’t be enough; do you have the knowledge necessary to understand the information you’d get? And even if you do in that particular instance, do you have the knowledge to judge the workmanship and behavior of every other industry on the planet? No, you don’t; one person can’t possibly do the work of several large government agencies.
I never said that I was a strong libertarian. did I?
Let’s also not forget that during the Asian financial crisis, the HK government began to directly purchase shares in the stock market (and at one point, it became the largest shareholder in HSBC, IIRC). That’s some libertarian juicy goodness right there, I tell ya.
I live in South Korea, which is as close to a Free Market Utopia as one is likely to find on the planet. I wouldn’t call the central government “weak” by Libertarian ideal measure, but they seem to be more about providing an effective infrastructure than keeping the same eight guys in power forever. Though politically conservative, they have heavily subsidized health care here. It’s not “cradle to grave” like Sweden, nor is it “let the working poor die” like America. If Obamacare winds up looking like Koreacare, I’m all for it.
I had a (minor) stroke last year and am convinced that if I’d had it back home in Virginia instead of here in Korea, the medical care would not have been as good and it would have cost a whole lot more. My doctor here, unsurprisingly, would rather Korea had something closer to free-market medical care; I think he should be happy with the Hyundai he has.
How is S. Korea anything close to a Free Market Utopia? They have long had a a crony-capitalist cartel system which heavily utilizes government industrial policy and subsidies.
This may be from the merged thread, so please see my refutation of this factoid above. Hong Kong isn’t in the least bit libertarian: it is just pro-capital, which is a different thing.