I’m not saying that the junkyard builder would have to make a report of the harm of the junkyard and submit it to a government organization. I’m saying that someone could sue him, preventing him from building it if a jury of his peers found it unacceptably harmful.
That’s right. If no one cares about old houses and junkyards, then they are not forced to do anything about it. You still have to take the physical harm of a junkyard or something into account, too, of course.
If I were supporting anarchy, then I would say so. In fact, I denounced anarcho-capitalism as foolish, since there can never be true anarchy. Without having a central agency with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, society *would *degrade into the wild-eyed fantasy you’re describing.
With tongue firmly in cheek, I once characterized libertarians as anarchists that lack the courage of their convictions, but the more they go on about the moral virute of unregulated markets one has to wonder.
I wish libertarians stopped conflating the free market with the “hands off” market. All anyone mentions in this thread is a market that the government stays out of, but all everyone talks about is a free market. Yes, we know the free market does many wonderful things, great economists have shown us with the inexorable force of mathematical proof, but no libertarian actually proposes a free market, so why try and steal those results? It takes more than a minimal government to obtain the wonders of a market overall (hint: it isn’t the government that’s causing reality’s failure to approximate theory’s perfect competition). What that level is, who can say, reasonable people can disagree. I also feel that economic efficiency is not the last word in analyzing desirable outcomes. We trade efficiency for stability in some cases, and that’s why the fire department doesn’t ask for my account number when my house is burning down. The costs are harder to measure, but that makes the analysis difficult, not wrong.
In most circumstances, I agree that the free market is the best solution when it works. What I disagree with is that libertarians typically propose the existence of a free market, or (inclusive) the conditions under which the market will work.
No I understand the concept, don’t worry about that. What I do not understand is where you will get the time to read all the medical literature to keep up with the latest developments?
Interesting. I looked up the current rankings of the UN’s Human Development Index, one of the most respected ways of ranking the relative well-being of countries. Here’s the top 15:
(Japan is number 17, Norway is number 34, and France is number 48.)
Now, just by eyeballing the charts, it would seem that countries that are slightly less economically free than the US tend to do the best in terms of the Human Development Index.
Trade protection for everything from sugar, to autos, to lumber, to textiles, to steel, to electronic components, to a billion other things that drive up the price of goods for consumers and reduce choice.
Public-teacher school unions.
Consumer product safety.
Insurance regulation that dramatically restricts choice for consumers.
Clean air restrictions on diesel imports from the EU, which arguably have stricter air quality regulations than the US.
Licensing requirements for doctors, dentists, lawyers, roofers, general contractors, hairstylists, elevator inspectors, hot dog stand vendors, veteranarians, taxi drivers, fire extinguisher manufacturers, automobile mechanics and a billion other things.
Amtrak. The Post Office.
The generic ‘all other’ where the government takes my money and provides absolutely nothing of value in return. Like Social Security. The ATF. The Dept of Education.
What do you care what I do, or where I will get the time to research whatever it is I’m buying? Maybe I won’t take the time at all. Maybe I’ll roll the dice and take a risk with an ‘unlicensed’ product or service. Maybe I’ll ask a neighbor’s opinion. Maybe I’ll read a Consumer Reports article. Maybe I’ll watch people use the product for a while, and see if any of them drop dead. Maybe I’ll decide the risk isn’t worth it and forgo something altogether, or search for a substitute. What difference does it make? The decision is in my control. I’ll weigh the risks vs. rewards and making my own decision accordingly.
You seem to be perfectly willing to assume that a G-10 employee sitting in a government-office cubicle somewhere, that you’ve never met, is making a perfectly good and cost-efficient decision for you. That’s your choice. If you want to delegate that responsibility to them, fine. Go for it. Just don’t force me to do the same, and don’t force me to pay for it.
I have no idea whether that person is doing a good job or not. I have no idea whether someone else could do it better, at lower cost. Or whether the agency in question is beholden to a special interest like a large corporation, or trial lawyer association, or foreign lobbyist, that is trying to tilt it’s decision one way or another to restrict my choice and drive up cost.
It the current state I have no choice. It’s going to be the way they say it is, backed up by the use of force if necessary.
And they have a self-enforced monopoly. A drug company can’t say, ‘You know what? This FDA testing thing is prohibitively long and expensive. And by keeping this drug off the market for 2-3 years longer than it needs to be, people will suffer needlessly. I don’t think we’ll go through FDA testing as a result.’ They can’t do that. They will be breaking the law.
Don’t you want more choice over your life? Why are you so willing to toss the keys to someone you’ve never met, to make decisions for you?
You said that Libertarianism doesn’t endorse child labor. Not specifically, no, but if you follow libertarian principles, child labor will follow. And I explained the arguments free marketers made in support of it.
As for me, I believe in regulatory capitalism, with a strict pragmatic streak. Free markets are far superior to controlled markets, but regulated free markets are far superior in the long run to unregulated ones. I’m also a student of behavioral economics, which shows that assumptions made by pure free marketers, libertarians, and communists about the actions of people in a market are incorrect. For whatever reason, people are not wired to make a libertarian society possible, which is why attempts to apply it become disasters.
Shit, as soon as you admit there are significant barriers to entry and lack of substitute goods you admit the market might have problems. Yet most libertarians assume patents and copyrights are extremely important, when these exactly correspond to guaranteeing the market in those areas won’t work! Of course, if you question this on economic grounds, you get a moral answer, and you question the moral answer, you get an economic one. It’s a great game to play.
Well, that’s a relief, since bad people have been extinct for so many years. It’s so nice that we can say that any good is a result of good systems and any bad is the result of bad people. Except when we want to talk about communism. Then it’s the other way around.
Exactly. Libertarians may not like child labor but they won’t do anything to stop it. So companies that decide to hire ten year olds to work for a dollar a day will be free to compete in the marketplace against companies that hire adult workers for a reasonable wage. Who wins that competition? Pretty soon everyone’s hiring children and paying them as little as possible because it’s the only way you can stay in business. The same thing goes for companies that are deciding if they should follow safety regulations or pollution standards or health plans or pensions - those companies that voluntarily choose to be responsible will have higher expenses and make less profit and will be driven out of business by the irresponsible competition.
In a democracy, we have a solution for this. The people decide that society benefits by having children go to school instead of working. And then it tells everyone that they must comply. So companies don’t have the option of hiring schoolchildren and everyone’s competing on the same level.
Thanks for illustrating the inherent fallacy in libertarianism. Libertarians, like most people actually, believe they are a lot smarter than the average. Do you actually believe that your opinions on medicine are as good as those of specialists with access to file cabinets full of documentation? Without the FDA, are you going to believe what the drug companies say? I’m not even saying all drug companies are out to cheat you - some, driven by desire to get the drug out the door, screw up. That’s why some drugs don’t make it to market.
I’d have thought the subprime mortgage crisis would have put an end to this claim forever. Sure, you might have the ability to read and understand a complex mortgage and know enough about the economy and business conditions to read between the lines and see if the assumptions made sense. Clearly a lot of people didn’t. Whether or not you think they deserved it, they dragged the rest of us down too. And don’t tell me about DCA. DCA didn’t apply to most of the companies writing these mortgages, and DCA said nothing about credit default swaps.
A lot of your list is similar. I trust you have a lab in your basement to test for poison in your toothpaste. I’m sure every new parent knows enough to check the distance between crib rails so the baby doesn’t get his head stuck and die. Oops, when I was growing up no one did.
China may be communist, but in a lot of ways it is an unregulated libertarian paradise. Without regulation it was in the best interest of a lot of companies to adulterate food. Were the victims of bad baby formula, or their parents, to blame. or a combination of crooked companies and lack of regulation?
They seldom admit barriers to entry, do they? Back in the time of the Microsoft antitrust trial the free market types didn’t admit any real advantage that IE had. Today the barriers are finally decreasing, but back then especially, with low bandwidth connections and braindead installers, it was a lot harder to decide to scrap IE for Netscape. As far as I could tell, a vast majority of computer scientists and programmers did, but not the general public - which should say something.
And good point on patents. I wonder what the libertarian take is. I suspect it could be considered a property protection thing.
I’m not really sure the l/Libertarians here really understand what the average person thinks when they (the Libs) start their spiels about “We know better than some government functionary whether or not this medicine or this beef or this toy are safe to take/eat/play with!”
We think it’s insanity, is what we think. Nobody just sat down one day and decided to create the FDA or the FTC or the SEC or the NLRB. They were all created because the abuses had become so bad that they were affecting public health and/or the national financial situation. Government bureaus don’t spring up from the background vacuum like jacks-in-the-box. They’re created for a reason, and usually it was a pretty nasty reason.
You don’t trust government. Fine. I don’t trust a population whose only real check on behavior is profit motive, because there is ALWAYS going to be that element who figures they can get their quick money out of the deal and then skip to the next town, and who the hell cares about the poor soul who just got sold a jar of kerosene as a cough remedy?
How do you know the people approving drugs are specialists with files full of documentation, making good decisions on your behalf? Why are you making that assumption?
Why did people buy adulterated Chinese formula, when they knew it was bad for them?
Why do you buy toothpaste for your kids if you know it is bad for them?
Behind our backs? It seems we get plenty of information on what the government and the Fed are doing. No, we don’t get to vote on it, but how many voters have the knowledge to understand the issues, the models, and the results of the models that drive this? As for savings accounts, ever since the '70s their rates fluctuate with inflation, so they will always be around it, being safe, but not way behind.
Gee, my kids didn’t get subjugated. Parents still count a lot, more than schools, in success rates, as can be seen in the correlation of test scores and income. In fact, as about any teacher can tell you, a lot of problem kids have parents who don’t participate. Is this going to get better if you dump even more responsibility on them? Not every parent wants to, or can, home school their kids.
I thought this was something even libertarians agreed with - conscription in time of national emergency. Sorry, if something like WW II happens again, we won’t be able to rely on voluntary enlistment.
Do you think this is a purely theoretical concept. Mr. Objectivist Greenspan objected to the regulation of the mortgage markets - and, surprise! - there were predators there. Regulators have to actually want to regulate, as the SEC ignoring Madoff the predator shows.
It’s not an assumption. It is borne out by the safety of drugs in the US, and by the number of drugs rejected. My wife actually worked in a very minor role getting Tagamet accepted, so she’s been on the inside, and she also writes extensively on medical issues. I think I can humbly say that I’m smarter than average, but I yield to her graduate degree in biology when making decisions about medical issues. Not too many families have that kind of resource.
Why do you think they knew it was bad for them? Do you think the containers said “poisoned to save you money?”
Try to get a grip on reality for a second. The adulterators sent out millions of tubes of poisoned product all over the world. The effect was not instant. It was also not trivial to trace the effect of the poison to the cause. After all, we don’t commonly suspect baby formula or toothpaste of poisoning us. Even when it was suspected the companies denied any problem. (And some of the problem came from contaminated ingredients, which made it harder.) Remember, the contaminant was selected to be hard to detect.
Does Libertarianism aways involve blaming the victim?
If one follows poverty principles, child labor will follow – it doesn’t matter what the prevailing ideology happens to be… whether it is libertarianism, capitalism, socialism, republicanism, Catholicism, etc.
Cuba, Russia, Vietnam, Bangladesh all have issues with child labor. Those countries are not “libertarian” so what are the reasons there? You could rack your brain to conjure up unique reasons for child labor for every country that has it. If you do that however, you really haven’t proved any point other than the one I made earlier… “if you follow <fill_in_the_blank_favorite_whipping_boy_belief>, child labor will follow.” That’s just pointless rhetoric fueled by the association fallacy.
Libertarianism is an extreme position. Just note the people in this thread complaining that the US of the past “wasn’t libertarian enough”. It’s also a dishonest or irrational one ( depending on if they really believe what they are saying ), since what they SAY a libertarian society will be like isn’t anything like what you actually get. Rather like an anarchist who insists that if you get rid of the cops everyone will cooperate and act all civilized - you can’t realistically discuss anarchism if you accept claims that unrealistic, either.
And in my personal experience, once you push them into a corner they typically admit that yes, they WOULD “leave grandmother to burn” if she couldn’t pay. As long as it’s not their grandmother, of course.
Governments don’t need to; reality does. There’s nothing else besides government that can do the job. And no, your all-powerful free market won’t do a bit of good. It never has; only the government stepping in ever has.
Well, they certainly won’t turn to libertarianism for help. Libertarians would laugh at them as they starved.
The whole point of libertarianism is that is suppresses outright violence -the anarchy of the common man; and allows economic coercion - the anarchy of the powerful and priviliged. They don’t want Bob to be able to hit them on the head; but they do want to be able to demand sex from Bob’s daughter on pain of unemployment and starvation, or to work Bob to death, or fire Bob because he’s black.
What makes you think they knew ? And, in fact, in your libertopia they probably STILL wouldn’t know.
That you think it’s insanity is clear. And, as I stated above, I lack the understanding of human psychology necessary to know why so many people are willing to throw away the precious right of choice to make their own decisions.
That’s what I’m talking about here. Choice. Freedom. I don’t proclaim to be smarter than the M.D.s in the FDA. Or know more about drug testing than they do. What I’d like is a choice. Control over my own decisions. And the freedom for drug companies to choose whether they want the FDA stamp of approval, or <Competing Testers> stamp of approval, or none, on their medicines. Then it is up to me to buy it. Or not.
