Nope. The default position is the real world, not some nebulous concept like freedom. And you’re begging the question by assuming that everybody should agree with you about the relative importance of freedom, hence that freedom should be the default position. Freedom is good, but safety also is, since you can’t enjoy nor freedom nor anything else if you’re, say, dead. Why shouldn’t safety be the default?
Plus, if freedom is the default position, why is the arbitrary concept of private property thrown in?
What allows you to declare that a piece of land is “private property” where I can’t roam freely, if I’m opposed, in the name of freedom, to this weird concept? How are you going to enforce it without restricting my freedom and making me live by your rules?
That will be a very ordinary “government intervention vs free market in a particular case” debate. We have those all the time. It won’t be a debate about libertarianism.
Aargh! In 1973, I bought a Pinto. Being young and stupid, I didn’t read a lot of reviews - not that the gas tank issue was public knowledge then anyhow. Now, if I had died, would it be my fault for not checking the specs? Ford did not offer to buy back the car, though it did get recalled and I got a real gas tank after the shit hit the fan. If there was a libertarian society, would the probability of me getting a dangerous car be greater or less? (It actually was a fine car, except for that.)
Because even if you find a country that doesn’t believe in banning things that don’t need to be banned or rampant government spending, self-imposed exile is easier said than done?
Sam, does the name Packard Bell ring a bell? Plenty of computer makers went bust for bad quality. The difference between them and drug makers is that you are unlikely to die for making a bad choice of PC. Checking the reviews before I bought my last computer revealed some suspicious brands.
Ah, but who will certify the certifier? Will your plan allow crooked certifiers to operate? Don’t tell me that the people will see through it. No matter how stupid one side of a California proposition is, they get an endorsement from some official sounding organization, often consisting of two press agents and a monkey. You think everyone figures out how bogus these guys are?
Give me some examples of widespread calamity. That bad drugs do get through (and usually affect a small number of people) just shows the difficulty of the vetting process. To be really safe you’d have to make the process take so long that people really needing the drug will die from not having it. Which is already an issue. I’d much rather have someone influenced more by public safety and not by profit make those decisions. And I am not accusing drug company execs of being cackling Burns’ rubbing their hand in glee about killing people for money. The needs of the business, and pressure from investors, is going to influence even the most honorable of execs into maybe approving drugs that need more work. Og knows we have seen enough examples lately of CEOs making company killing mistakes. Let’s not have that be people killing mistakes also.
So, it is more efficient for the economy to have ten or twenty insurance agencies testing rather than one government agency? And for the drug companies? What if the insurance companies all require different tests? Does the drug company meet all the requirements, which will cost a bundle, raise the cost of drugs, and no doubt prevent non-profitable drugs under this new model from getting to market. As for doctors, mine seem busy enough. They need to worry about the right drug for the right condition, not the safety of the drug. That is impractical. Look at a PDR lately? That of course has none of the information needed to make informed decisions in a world without the FDA. Not that I’d trust them anyway. First, remember the joke about what you call the guy who graduates last in his med school class. Second, doctors have many skills, but clinical analysis and statistics are often not included. When my wife was getting data from doctors on clinical studies, she had to gently inform some of them that it was not okay to discard outliers to make the data look better.
Don’t you think the goal of the FDA is to minimize suffering, which means that they have an incentive to get good drugs to market as soon as it is safe, not just hold things back until there is no risk? Anyhow, if you had the good fortune to live in our free market insurance system, you’d no doubt be laughing hysterically about how insurance companies want nothing better than to improve our health? Think it is impossible that a discount on a drug might just possibly influence an insurance company to approve it a little early?
And please, after Enron, Countrywide, Global Crossing and Lehman, saying that companies will never do things that might put them out of business just shows your ideology has caused you to lose touch with reality. Do you not lock your doors because a burglar would never rob you because he will eventually get caught?
Who said anything about a meat-packer being a monopoly? If you want to introduce that little variable into the equation, fine. I’ll run with it for a while.
So in the face of other options: soybeans, pasta, the farm down the road, grilled beef you could cook at home, other vegetables, eating at a friend’s house, you rolled the dice, sucked up your courage, and bought a can of meat - that you didn’t really want to, because of unclear value in the brand of the testing company - because you had to.
You had no other choice. The canned meat company had a monopoly. You shrugged your shoulders at the horrible injustice of it, but concluded there was nothing else you could do. You dropped the can in your cart, checked out with the nice lady at the cash register, and drove home.
And then, due to an unfortunate twist of timing and circumstances, it came to light just after you got home that the testing company was disreputable and put your life at risk.
Yes, you have that right. But honestly, I don’t see how you can possibly explain the situation away. As you’ve correctly pointed out, the laissez-faire government that the United States had in the 1800’s had many of the attributes of a libertarian government, certainly so in its lack of business regulations. Lo and behold, a scenario very much like the one I set forth in my hypothetical actually happened . So going back to the burden of proof issue, when we had a government a lot like the one you hold up as ideal, and it did, in fact, lead to the very problem I intentionally built my hypothetical around, (and continues to happen in places like China where health oversight and regulation of businesses are minimal), you are going to have a real tough time convincing me that this wouldn’t be a problem.
You’ve also yet to explain how my lack of choice (or the 1870’s coal miner’s lack of choice) is any worse “compulsion” than that of the government setting up a regulatory agency like the FDA, which you so dread. In my scenario I want to eat meat, libertarians don’t want to give some of their money to provide for public welfare. In either case,we are “compelled” to not get what we want. I don’t really care that in one case the government, who at least I voted for, uses its monopoly of force and in the other case its the lack of an honest meat packer (or a mining company willing to provide safe working conditions in the example of the coal miner). The result, one of us being “compelled” is the same.
I hear you Sam. I know it seems like we might be getting lost in the weeds here.
But I actually think we’re getting pretty close to answering the original OP. As odd as that might sound.
You said in an earlier post that people didn’t trust the free market to provide solutions. That they would put more faith in central planning.
I think that’s almost the answer. But not quite.
Look at the language in the postings over the past few pages. The pages that cover the little FDA & canned-meat example I was running with.
‘I can’t be expected to know which testing company…’
‘How am I supposed to research everything…’
‘The meat-packers have a monopoly [and therefore I have no choice]…’
‘Regulation eases our concerns…[emphasis on our; notice the poster didn’t use ‘my’]’
And then arguments are thrown about how this government agency, or that government agency, provides ‘stability’ or is for ‘the good of society’ or something like that. People can trust the government to do this or that. But they can’t trust the free market.
But look again at the language above.
You know who people don’t trust? It’s not the free market, whatever that is. It’s THEMSELVES. They don’t trust themselves to make rational decisions on their own behalf in these matters. That’s what I was digging for with my obnoxious malingering on the canned-meat example.
They don’t trust themselves. Their insecurity gets the best of them. They don’t want the responsibility or burden of having to make a decision on their own behalf.
But they are perfectly willing to commit the irrational act of giving complete authority over their decision-making to a government agency. Someone or something over which they have no control, Who will then make decisions for them.
Let’s vote for that guy. Then let’s give him more power. He will save us.
The government must be given more control over their lives. Because otherwise, they will be helpless victims subject to outside forces. The rapacious marauders of the free market, scheming in corporate boardrooms to kill them with defective products. Unscrupulous meat packers. Those who seek to defraud them at every turn. They need protection.
But it’s not protection from the ‘free market’. It’s protection from their own decisions. Because after all, that’s all the free market is. It’s a collection of individual decisions, made by individuals.
Their own judgement is what they fear. The language in the canned-meat example is unmistakable.
Now Sam, you know and I know that placing that sort of absolute trust in a government agency is ridiculous. Here is one cite I found in 15 seconds of Google searching about how the FDA fell down at it’s job.
I’ve posted other cites before about corrupt and incompetent bank regulators.
Now here’s the really crazy part. Or ‘insane’, as one poster essentially called me.
I fully support the right of anti-libertarians to continue patronizing the FDA as their testing ‘brand’. I certainly support their right to choose that if they wish. Just as I would support their right to choose Coke or Tide or Chevys or Fords as their brand. The libertarian stance is that the FDA is free to operate as it does today, serving the customers who wish to use it.
But they can’t even hack THAT. They don’t WANT the choice. They don’t want that burden. They would rather engage in an act of cognitive dissonance by basking in the warm psychological bath of government oversight. It’s a defensive mechanism to absolve them of their own responsibility, and the consequences of a bad decision.
Hell, look back at that libraries thread from a few days ago. There were people on that thread, as well as few lunatics on this thread, who insist the government must provide us with information. The government will provide choices of news sources. Because we can’t trust the free market to provide us with unfettered information. Even as they freely post on an unregulated Internet bulletin board. Good God. The cognitive dissonance is amazing.
That, my friend, is why Libertarianism may never take hold. Because my two-bit psychoanalysis brain tells me a significant portion of the human populace is wired this way. Is it 50%? 70%? I don’t know. But as long as they continue to vote, they will continue to trade liberty for security. And have neither.
First, you remind me of the survey that showed a vast majority of drivers think they are above average. (Reference on request - I used this in a paper and found the actual source.) You and Sam, and most other libertarians, are sure that when sick you can easily wade through hundreds of pages of extremely technical studies to figure out which drug is safe, or figure out which testing company doesn’t have hidden links to drug companies and thus can be trusted. Not only that, you are sure that everyone else can also, even high school dropouts, even people who never took biology. If they can’t or won’t fuck 'em, just like you guys blame the people who weren’t capable of understanding their mortgage documents - or who couldn’t see through the lies of the brokers.
You say we don’t trust the free market. Please point out this free market to me. The free market is made up of millions of decisions by millions of people with a wide variance of skill, ability, and honesty. I trust the free market - I trust it to be driven by things that the free market rewards. If people involved in the free market can make short term money by selling dangerous drugs, that is what is going to happen. If they can make it by selling mortgages to people who will never be able to pay them off, that is what is going to happen. If you are going to tell me that no one will do this because they won’t get away with it in the long run, I have some Madoff investments you might be interested in.
We give you specific instances of problems with the free market, and you respond with pieties about trust. I think it is time you specifically outline how the problems of tainted meat and quack remedies that were the cause of the laws you hate so much won’t return. (Like they did in China.) Otherwise you are the moral equivalent of the creationist who ignores the data and says that Darwin must have been wrong because if he was right we’d be no better than animals. Your notions of personal liberty are wonderful - how many citizens do you think ought to die for your absolutist opinions?
You’ve got it backwards. It’s Libertarianism that relies on blind faith.
Libertarians believe that corporations would never hurt them. When contrary evidence is provided that this faith is misplaced, Libertarians “explain” it away the same way that some Christians explain away the contradictions in their faith. Libertarians believe in the inerrancy of the free market the way fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
The rest of us lack that faith. We don’t trust corporations to be our friends. So we form a government in order to protect ourselves. Remember, we are the government - when we tell the government to do something, we’re really doing it for ourselves.
So the issue is are you willing to take up your share of managing your own life or are you a Libertarian who needs somebody else to tell you what to do?
Nemo, they do not trust the free market any more than anyone else does. They trust agents in a free market more than anyone else does. It’s a moral position. The beginning of libertarianism is non-coercion, not an economic assumption. That’s why they like the unregulated market rather than a “free market” in the more technical sense (perfect competition etc). If only we all agreed on non-coercion, everything would follow from that. I’m sure there could be no market failures in that scenario for reasons as interesting yet as impractical as why ideal markets are perfectly efficient.
No, it’s an AMORAL position. At best. The market isn’t moral.
They have no problems with coercion; they just want to rule out the kinds that can be employed by the commoners * so that they can be trampled upon and exploited. They want employers to be able to tell people to do what they are told or starve, or to fire people because they are the wrong race or religion, or to be able to demand sexual favors; they don’t want the victims of those practices to be able to pass laws against them.
And terms like “commoners” and “aristocracy” do fit their worldview, whether they prefer to admit it or not.
I am extremely pro-market but I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism discussions inevitably devolve to economic discussions, which should be amoral, but aren’t for several interesting but ultimately tangential reasons. Regardless, libertarianism as a political philosophy is based on non-economic stuff and, so, I call it a moral position. I’m not saying the free market is or isn’t moral. I’m saying libertarianism is a moral position.
This is part of what I was trying to say, but far more succinct. Notice how so much of the libertarian position assumes things about agents - that they are rational, that they will not do things which will cause their companies to go bankrupt. All of this has been falsified time and time again, and I agree that the fact that they keep on repeating it shows that their position is more a matter of faith than of economics.
Exactly. As I have pointed out several times now, yet those defending libertarianism keep ignoring, just because someone isn’t pointing a gun at you doesn’t mean it’s not coercion.
The problem with their unfounded belief that non-coercion can be achieved by disbanding the government. This assumes that the only form of coercion that can possibly exist is governmental coercion. Does that really sound credible? If I get mugged does it because the mugger was working for the government? No, obviously it’s possible for individuals to use force to commit crimes against me. And if they band together, it’s possible for groups to do the same. What prevents this from being more common is the law - the people joining together, forming a government, making up a set of common rules, and enforcing them.
Corporations don’t act in my best interest because they love me. They’re just like individuals or groups - they’re acting in their own best interest not mine. And it would often be in their best interest to screw me over if they could. So I want my government to make it illegal for them to screw me over. My government is my defense - it’s not perfect but it’s better than not having it.
The fact is we trust other people to do the right thing without an economic incentive whereas you think that if one removes that economic incentive people can’t be trusted.
Why? Why do you think that? Why do you assume that the worker drone from Sector 7G in a private company is competent whereas their equivalent working for the State isn’t?
I don’t think that at all. I don’t have a blanket assumption about who, or who can’t, be trusted. Such a blanket assumption makes no sense.
Although a myriad and sundry number of posters on this thread seem willing to put 100% trust in the government agency testing their food. But 0% in themselves.
I weigh the risks and rewards of buying Product X from Company Y (and potentially tested by company A, or government agency B) and decide to buy it, or not buy it. And then live with the consequences of my decision.
That’s all there is to it. It’s not any more complicated than that.
Plenty of computer makers went bust for bad quality. The difference between them and drug makers is that you are unlikely to die for making a bad choice of PC. Checking the reviews before I bought my last computer revealed some suspicious brands.