jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (145 posts)

This is your libertarian paradise

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world … odayspaper

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world … wanted=all

    Employees work in dangerous conditions, are paid a pittance of a wage, and don't even have the ability to breathe clean air, and in some places, drink clean water. (American history bears this out also).

    This is the free-market without government intervention; this is your libertarian paradise.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Sooner.

      I totally agree.

      One hundred forty-six women died in The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City only 102 years ago. Industry can never be trusted to self regulate.
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8006956_f248.jpg
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is why there MUST be unions and government regulations.  Labor laws were instituted for the purpose of guaranteeing fair and humane labor conditions such as the 40 hour workweek..

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +1

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +1

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Perfect example Quill.

      3. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        For someone usually so vigorous in analysis, this is a weak effort. Do you honestly believe regulations to be an unbreakable fire-proof blanket?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Modern regulations would have saved those peoples lives, locking your workers in is now a massive crime and people who violate the law on it face stiff consequences.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you think it is largely in businesses' interests to have their factories burn along with all of the workers?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The fire itself is not in their interest, making it so their workers can't leave, even in the incidence of a fire, is. As I said modern regulations would have saved their lives.

              They locked the doors and so people could not escape.

              Are you not familiar with the incident?

              Oh and the people responsible for this? They went on to have other businesses, so much for market regulation. By the libertarian market principle surely the people found guilty (on balance of evidence) of over a hundred and forty counts of manslaughter would not receive enough business from the public, apparently not so.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No.

                Modern regulations and the business never would have existed in the first place. Nobody would have been able to afford modern regulations. I addressed this already, but who cares about niggling little facts like that?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Modern regulations in the sense of don't lock your doors with people inside. As in modern regulations as relevant to this case.

                  I am also incredibly skeptical that they could not afford it at all (at least to some extent maybe not all) but please prove it.

                  No one cares about irrelevant statements. The argument is about regulation saving lives, don't lock the doors regulation and enforcement would have saved lives was the point made, unless you are seriously suggesting people could not afford to not lock their workers in your statement is irrelevant to the case in discussion.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, locking their workers in was murder. That kind of action is a direct attack on the right to life, but you act like it would be fine according to libertarian principles.

            2. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This is where your naive libertarian fantasy is exposed.  Obviously, the owners of that factory thought it was in their best interests to lock their employees in.  Some business owners will abuse their employees, sell faulty products or services, or poison the environment for short-term gain.  Sure, once their folly is exposed they might go out of business, but by then people are dead or injured or the environment is ruined.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You can have laws against unlawful imprisonment without have a government so large and intrusive that is regulates hiring and firing practices, artificially sets wages etc...

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Locking your doors with employees inside is not unlawful imprisonment as people are there voluntarily to work.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not allowing them to leave in case of life emergency is negligent homicide though(or manslaughter, the terminology doesn't matter in this case). They don't agree to working in a burning building.

                    Libertarian doesn't mean no laws, you do know that right?

                  2. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually locking someone in a building without their consent and when causing them physical harm/death is illegal.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I hope your day is going okay, Innersmiff. It is dank, dreary, and drizzling here.

          First, I thank you for your kind words while, at the same time, I disagree with your assessment of my example. The fire is not the point. The lack of regulation and oversight is the point. While some like to post theories and hypothetical examples extolling the virtues of little or no regulation over commercial activities, I prefer to use real live incidents like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that occurred in a ten story building in 1911. Because of the lack of adequate regulation, exit doors were locked and some stairwells were used for storage. Is it not obvious that these conditions were in place for a long period of time specifically BECAUSE they were “largely in businesses' interests?” Is it not also obvious that there were inadequate regulations in place, regulations largely in the interest of the workers? I suppose devout libertarians might argue that the dead workers could have chosen to find work in a safer factory, thus forcing the owners to improve working conditions that attracted production help. I also suppose those same libertarians might ignore the fact that such dangerous working conditions were commonplace and that the Jewish and Italian immigrant workers had no such choice.

          I submit the endless examples of corporate collusion and price fixing, two practices both remarkably successful and typical for increasing profits at the expense of customers. I submit the Tobacco Institute, an industry wide organization, formed to push back against regulations to protect consumers. I submit the history of business acquisitions in the US showing how corporate giants devoured smaller companies hence eliminating, not stimulating, competition. Who has not heard the rumors of gasoline companies buying the designs for more efficient carburetors? True or not true, these stories demonstrate that corporations in an unregulated free-market environment do not always operate in the best interest of the consumer.       

          I sure hope your day, Innersmiff, was sunnier than mine was.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hello Quill. Same here unfortunately. We don't usually need central heating this time of year but here we are.

            This situation sounds like both an unfortunate but inevitable downside to freedom that can not be cured by regulation, and also a failure of government courts. In this modern world where business's have more resources to devote to standards, and considerable health and safety paranoia, it would not be in their interests to have bad conditions and records. It's nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with the resources available, and worker and consumer standards.  But what is better out of the only two scenarios that were possible back 102 years ago: an unsafe job or no job at all? Things were bad, but they get better.

            You've kind of undone yourself with "in an unregulated free-market environment", seeing as regulations almost never benefit the consumers and smallest businesses but the big businesses. Companies with more resources can handle the cost of regulations where companies with less cannot. Regulations only serve to put small companies out of business, and this, along with bail-outs, subsidies and favours, is how the biggest get bigger and the smallest get smaller and fewer. Monopoly is not inherent in capitalism.

            Monopolies on designs are a government law creation and would not exist in a truly free-market.

            Plus, what is wrong with the tobacco industry pushing against regulations exactly? It is the consumer's prerogative whether they want to smoke or not, and their own health is their own responsibility.

            In a free-market, corporations can only respond to consumer desires since their livelihoods depend on it.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image91
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Howdy Innersmiff.  82 F and sunny today. Things are looking up!

              I read and understand where you are coming from. While your post overflows with interesting theories and textbook scenarios, I have presented real life, solid examples that clearly demonstrate that, when there is little or no regulation, corporations will ALWAYS put their own self-interests before the best interest of their customers and the general public. They will hide the truth from the public like the tobacco industry tried to suppress the risks and addictive qualities of nicotine. History confirms that even in a free-market society, government will have to regulate to protect employees, customers, the environment, the public, the young, and those who are economically at a disadvantage. Corporate America has yet to prove it can be trusted to do what is right. 

              Just my opinion. Have to peaceful night.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's very difficult to provide real world examples when you cite every instance of something going wrong in the world as evidence of market failure. How exactly do I show you the opposite argument unless I repeat my other point? That Hong Kong and Singapore are not experiencing mass building collapses despite their relative lack in regulation? It requires logical deduction as well as examples. If you don't understand why that's the case it's very easy just to brush it off. This is what capitalists are dealing with.

                In a true free-market, results are indicators of public demand. 102 years ago, people were more concerned about getting jobs and keeping jobs than worker safety. This indicates the demand of the consumer and the worker. As time goes by, and people get richer due to the brilliance of the market, more resources can be devoted to health and safety. Evidence:


                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8025033_f248.jpg


                Long before the most comprehensive worker-safety regulation came in, workplace fatalities were steadily decreasing. Free markets mean more competition and compel businesses to make workplaces safe because that is a palpable demand in the economy. Allow people to get the resources to meet a demand and they will meet it, through their own interest. Put in aggressive regulation, however, and you are limiting the amount of resources that can be put to other tasks, like hiring people in the first place.

                Concerning the cigarette companies - it entirely depends on how they go about suppressing information. If they do it aggressively, by themselves or through government, this is not something the libertarian would advocate. Despite that, the press has done a pretty good job of educating people in that matter. Now, if we took regulation away, I doubt we would be seeing millions of people take up smoking all of a sudden. Smoking has become culturally unfashionable. And besides, it is the individual's prerogative whether they want to smoke, and not the business of government.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you, Innersmiff. I greatly appreciate your having made the time to reply.

                  My examples of “something going wrong in the world” certainly have value as evidence, not of free-market failures, but of regulated-market failures that would only grow worse and not better with less regulation and oversight in a free-market environment. True, it does require logical deduction as well as examples. I know Singapore has a building code, which may explain the lack of catastrophic collapses. {1} However, there is also a building code in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where more than 1,000 workers died when a factory building collapsed. Is it your logical deduction that in a free-market system such occurrences would be more often or less? In the end, Innersmiff, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the basic assumptions in libertarian economic theories (i.e. rationality, complete information) do not accurately reflect the real world. As a result, so many of the outcomes predicted in libertarian economic approaches that rely on these assumptions will not see the predicted theoretical results. Furthermore, nearly all competing economic philosophies today recognize the existence of externalities that most libertarian economic theories do not consider or deny entirely. Those who do acknowledge externalities claim they can be overcome by educating the public. Hence, pure, unadulterated Libertarianism consists of unproven economic theories built upon others and the whole economic structure can not survive the first real gust of wind. I do not agree that societies, capitalists or otherwise, brush off everything without close examination first. Laissez-faire is a most libertarians can hope to achieve in an advancing industrialized nation. This, along with your graphic, is hardly proof that market pressure lead to lower fatalities. In the years prior to OSHA, regulations were applied incrementally in most industries. Children were not removed from US coalmines because of market pressures. Asbestos was not banned from buildings because of market pressures. Efforts to use safety glass windshields, seat belts, and air bags were all stonewalled by the automobile industry. {2}

                  Put a dozen Libertarians on a deserted island and in time they might achieve The Lord of the Flies. A bit of hyperbole, I admit, but it makes my point.

                  Thanks, Innersmiff, for your viewpoints.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/ … rlist.html
                  {2} http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial … surowiecki

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lot of people who don't understand what libertarianism is...

      China, lol

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Um.  I know what libertarianism is.  Robert Nozick, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayeck, and maybe Ron Paul.

        Do you know that China isn't Communist?  Or did you never actually read Marx?

        I wasn't saying China was libertarian.  China doesn't regulate industry though in terms of pollution, not like they should (since the air is horrible), and that is a direct consequence of what libertarianism would entail in the United States.  I only used them because their pollution is so bad.  I could point to pollution in the United Stats and other countries as well.  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/wor … regulation

        So what's your solution to these horrific consequences of the free market, the negative externalities we all learned about in Econ 101?

    3. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just like a TRUE communist economic system is a fantasy contrary to human nature, so also is libertarianism. Is there ONE, just one example of a society that is libertarian by definition? Rightwingers continue to operate under a state of delusion.....

      Funny it is that I can never get a straight answer for the right when it comes to glaring faults and contradictions that is part and parcel of libertarian philosophy, and what they would do besides let the foxes rule over the chicken coops?

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No there isn't a libertarian society by definition. But how this is proof that it is contrary to human nature, I have no idea.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Humanity worldwide does not willingly embrace a system that is unnatural to them in favor of things that are natural.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This is subject to change. It was inconceivable, a thousand years ago, that a society could exist without a despot or monarch at the head. According to Credence, this means that democracy is a fantasy.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes things change but rarely do they reverse a worldwide trend that has continued from the very beginnings of recorded history. By evidential standard it is a fantasy, theoretically it's possible though incredibly flawed and unstable.

              Most early governments around the world start out libertarian, but that system is quickly rejected and abandoned by the public.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                When a gang of thieves gets larger and steal from more and more people as time goes by, is this evidence that cooperation, as opposed to theft, is flawed and undesirable?

            2. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, democracy, by its very definition is a progressive political concept not associated with conservatives, acknowiedging that there is no such thing as some being more equal than others.....The changes that you suggest, innersmith, are backward directed. Just another form of despotism where those with the means may do what they like to anyone without being held accountable, nothing novel there, goes back to the days of the pyramids.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                :facepalm:

                You're not describing libertarianism. Despotism is the exact opposite.

              2. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, but there was a time when no society operated under a democracy. If it wasn't a fantasy then, that doesn't make libertarianism a fantasy now.

                Read Rothbard's 'For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto' and then come back to me. You don't know what it is.

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, innersmith, is there a working example of this universal utopia called Libertarianism? People are not going to do things just because it is the right thing to do, human nature includes greed and selfishness which can put lives in danger as was mentioned in an example earlier.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And overbearing tyrannical governments don't? Libertarian does not mean no government, but a very limit one...especially, but not limit to, a small FEDERAL Government. There will always need to be civil laws, but not at the level and reach that we have today.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "There will always need to be civil laws,........

              Now we are cooking with gas, that is all that I attempt to get the rightwinger to acknowledge.

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You want to buy a vacuum cleaner. You go online and find out that Dyson cleaners work well, and Drubat cleaners have a tendency to explode violently. At the store, the Dyson has a JxRaine Safety Certified sticker, and the Drubat doesn't.

            Which one are you going to buy?

            How is it in Drubat's best interest to create a dangerous product that nobody will want to buy? How does that help fulfill their greed?

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              JxRaine Safety Certified, yeah, right. How I do I know that you are not in cahoots with Drubat and all other product companies. I want penalties for non-compliance, like fines and jail time, no free market system can put the fear of God in people for screwing up in the same way... That can only come from law and by extension Government.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Free market can handle that. You can sue me if I'm lying. Just as you put your trust in private companies who certify products already! (but the government tries to hold your hand so you don't even realize it).

                Is there any company or name that you trust?

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Your position here is not completely without merit, I do follow the Consumer Reports magazine. But they are non profit, not accepting advertising so I can be confident that there is a strong tendency that they are not being bought. Can i say the same for JaxsonRaine?
                  I, trying to sue you is like I trying to sue Union Carbide. I am not equipped neither materially nor fiancially to prove that you fabricate, but that is what most of corporate America counts on. Intimidate, knowing that their resources are far to great to contend with, so we are forced without a Government advocate to live with whatever you did.
                  Of course there are companies that I trust, only because there is regulatory machinery in place to make certain that encourages them to remain trustworthy.

                  The pursuit of profit is most often contrary to the concerns of the public. And what is capitalism all about?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If you had bought products with the JxR Cert sticker on them for years, and never had a problem, would you have more trust? What if everyone you knew had no problem with them either?

                    Just like companies get reputations now, companies would get reputations in a libertarian society. I would actually love to have a certification company. Yeah, I'd do it for profit, but I don't want much. Non-profits are scams anyway, the person running them regularly makes $250,000 - $millions.

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Would you fancy suing say Bill Gates?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If he did something bad enough? Absolutely!

                    There are lawyers who would take cases like that without charging you a cent.

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's an easy one - Dyson £500

                                               Drubat £50

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The situation when you have regulations -
                Dyson £700
                Drubat - out of business

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you are admitting that regulation is effective then!

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope. It drives up the cost of the Dyson, and the Drubat would have gone out of business anyway, because nobody is going to buy a bomb.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You would spend $50 to blow yourself up?

                I wouldn't, but you should be free to.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What about all those whose only option is the £50 model?

                  1. 59
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They have the option of doing without.

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Option 1 - Buy it, you might get hurt
                    Option 2 - Don't buy it. You're no worse off than if it wasn't an option.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Everything the government does can be replaced by the free market, and can be done better by the free market. You don't have to have government regulations to have safe products. What is required is a populace that demands it. You get more strict oversight, with less corruption and cost, through the private market.

    Safety-regulation stuff is often done by private companies in the US anyway, at higher standards than law requires.

    It's ironic that people demand the government do X, and they need a large enough group of people demanding it to get it done, but they don't think that they would be able to use that force on the free market to get it done.

    Anyway, most people don't understand libertarianism. Mostly they confuse it with anarchism. Nearly always they don't realize that there is no such thing as 'libertarianism', there is a wide gamut of libertarian ideologies.

    But let's just use China as an example of why libertarianism doesn't work lol

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What is required is a populace that demands it

      Without government and the law, how do we enforce it? Who cares what the populace demands, when the lion has no teeth?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You don't enforce it.

        What you do is support it.

        Imagine you're shopping for a house. One builder shows you a home, but it has no third-party safety certifications. Another builder shows you a home, and it has certifications from two well-known independent certification companies. Are you going to buy the house that isn't certified over the one that is?

        The builder that doesn't certify its homes is going to go out of business.

        It requires an educated populace who is willing to take responsibility for themselves. The internet is a vital tool for having a system like this work well, where the broad dissemination of information is available to everyone.

        This already happens more than you know, certification companies have popped up in all sorts of fields to rank products, and competitors are so driven to compete with each other that these standards quickly became adopted by everyone.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As Quill alludes to, what about the violations that are not plainly evident by the populace but are taking place all the same? Kelloggs of Battle Creek has a standard as to how much extraneous material is allowed in a box of corn flakes, if the standard was lax to the point that the public could see the lack of quality and select the other brand, that is one thing, but the standard in fact is beyond that that could be identified with the naked eye.Meeting a standard beyond the public's ability to discern any visable difference in quality is expensive and why would a company comply with it?.  In most cases everybody knows that  what you don't see can kill you. And you want to trust the greedy corporate robber baron?

          This libertarian idea is ridiculous on its face, Jaxson, you will have to do better...

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ok, so you just ignore my entire post?

            I never said that each individual would have to be in charge of testing things. That's ludicrous. I could start a standardization firm(as happens currently in this non-libertarian society we have), and test Kellog's products, then issue a report. My firm would have requirements, and any company that complied with them would get certification. You would learn that the JxRaine Certification symbol meant that it was safe to eat. You wouldn't buy a cereal that hasn't been tested over one that has, and a company wouldn't make a cereal that hasn't been tested because they would lose money.

            Like I said, it already happens, even without the public being widely aware of it. And the public isn't widely aware of it because they have been trained by nanny government not to think for themselves.

            1. Mitch Alan profile image85
              Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, a third-party system that offered certification to businesses for safety, efficacy etc. would offer the public options without more government bureaucracy.
              If Company X offered a certification system to Companies from Industry Y that were then accessible to the public and that offered "grades" on the companies, then "we the people" could chose which companies we purchased from. We would be responsible for comparing companies.

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes and interlocking directorates would NEVER be a problem with that...

                1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                  Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sooner, elaborate please.

                  1. 0
                    Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Members of one corporate board serving on another.  So, to use Jason's vacuum cleaner example, 3 members of the board of directors of the vacuum cleaner company also serve on the safety certification company, thereby creating a huge conflict of interest.

                    But if you are against regulation, then there's nothing you can do to stop that.

            2. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, I did not ignore you. Why should your business not be unscrupulous in what it does as you are driven by the profit motive? If Kellogs paid you enough to look the other way, why live up to the requirements? Who is making sure that your service to the public is untainted, free of graft and corruption, you are in business to make money, anything else is an illusion. It would be naive of me to believe that you would not be untainted by these things, it happens all of the time. Without legal repercussions available to make sure you do your task properly, sorry, I don't trust you.

              You folks and your paradyme of libertarianism has a possible model that can only be found in the America of the past. Who wants to hop in your wayback machine and estol the virtues of 19th century American capitalism? Good luck! This libertarianism as you guys on the right describe has as much a chance of ever being adopted as a blizzard here in Hawaii, in the middle of July!!

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Who is going to monitor the government to make sure it's not being corrupt? Senator Feinstein's husband just won a billion dollar contract to build a high-speed rail... coincidence?

                With the free market, you have competition. So if my company started cheating, other certification companies would be able to prove that I wasn't doing my job, and I would lose my business.

                You could also sue me for saying something that is dangerous is safe, and that's fine, because I would have been directly causing harm to people.

                You confuse the past with libertarianism, when what you are actually comparing is a developing nation to a developed one.

                Every. Single. Objection. you have with libertarian exists with the government... but the government is harder to change.

                Every. Single. Solution. that you get through the government, you could get better through the free market.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, the lion has plenty of teeth.  Free enterprise works very well when the consumer is a lion, but unfortunately the US population is comprised of mostly lambs interested primarily in how cheap something is and that does nothing to control either quality or such things as production facilities, safety (for worker OR consumer) or a host of other things.

        The result is that the lions force the issue via laws and the lambs are content to have someone else make the decisions FOR them.  They're even willing to forego the low cost because they don't see the results of the lions actions; it is hidden from them and they're too stupid or lazy to figure out what has happened.

        Not to say that many of the lion's decisions are bad; for the most part they aren't.  It only degenerates when the lions decide (as they have) that ever more control is needed to keep the stupid lambs safe, that only the lions know how to do that and thus keep making laws even where personal protection is absolutely the task of the lamb.  Limiting pop sizes in NYC, for example.

        1. peeples profile image90
          peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilderness I must say I couldn't agree more nor said it better.
          A free enterprise would be a wonderful thing if people could think for themselves. Sadly it seems the goal of the USA government to dumb down the population as much as they can.

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, how can the consumer be a lion? This is a very complicated world and everything from the safety of the carton of milk i drink to being confident that when I board a jet, I get to my destination in one piece, is beyond the cognizance and competence of all people. After I have been  electrocuted by a product, then, according to the free market libertarianism, I would simply not buy that product again? This is ludicrous.

          The thieves and the shysters are becoming more sofisticated in their methods, so I want the ratchet turned ever tighter. Everybody knows that the soda example in New York is not representative of a bigger picture. How about Wall Street, on the same avenue as McDonalds? Yes, I am for Government holding people, the crooks, accountable with fear of imprisonment, fines and creating a generally bad business climate for those that fail to operate within Government regulatory directives.

          Those with superior knowledge in specialized fields often use that knowledge to the disadvantage of the average person, who simply cannot be as well versed in it.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Every complaint you have can apply to government.

            All you are doing is replacing free-market certifications with government certifications. I don't know how you could possibly trust a monopoly government more than competitive free markets...

            It's not like the government has just recently:

            Left men to die in Benghazi against SOP
            Illegally seized 60 million health records.
            Persecuted citizens for being related to the tea party.
            Illegally spied on the press.
            Made sweetheart deals with a senator's husband for a billion dollar contract for a high speed rail.
            *this list goes on and on my friends. Some people started listing these not knowing what it was, and they'll continue listing these forever just because this list goes on and on my friends...*

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All you are doing is replacing free-market certifications with government certifications. I don't know how you could possibly trust a monopoly government more than competitive free markets...

              Thats easy, I don't trust entities where pursuit of profit is first and foremost and that is not true of Government regulators in principle.

              The outrages of the private sector, who I am not particularly fond of are far more egregious.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, the government seeks self-justification just like private corporations. Politicians have a job to keep themselves in a job.

                That's the difference though... you trust the government over everything else. I don't. The government has shown it can't be trusted, but with the government you have no other options. With a free market, you have other options.

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's the difference though... you trust the government over everything else.

                  I would not say over everything else, but over the private sector, YES! particularly in the areas that we have been discussing. Those involved in skullduggery in the free market, just simply move the pea up under another shell. We have the ballot, it is up to us as citizens to vote for the Government that we want. The supermarket mentality of the libertarian is not particularly attractive.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I personally trust organisations that I can willingly take my money away from over ones that take my money by force. Maybe that's just me.

        3. maxoxam41 profile image79
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The US is the epitome of free market and does it work? No. Maybe your education is limited to fox news but most of the economists are acknowledging that liberalism is a failure. When the human factor is not taken seriously as a factor of production (fair wage adaptable to the inflation, to the benefit margin...) the economy goes down the drain. We, too easily, forget that the human factor is the economical demand. Where is the point of an offer superior to the demand?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I believe we just said the same thing.  The human factor must be considered to have a successful and viable economy, but a very liberal government can't do it (they forget other factors such as profit) and a populace can't either (they forget everything but cost).

            1. maxoxam41 profile image79
              maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              10 cents per shoe made in Asia and sold $375 in the USA, is it the cost you were referring to? Come on it is a lost battle, you know you are wrong.
              What is a VERY liberal economy? The US? Then I am right. You forget that like Russia symbolized Communism, the US carried proudly on its shoulders Capitalism. Be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the US is only liberal not VERY liberal, therefore it makes the model of capitalism a failure since its model contributed to the collapse of the economy. In that same logic, you can't infer that the Obama versus the Bush administrations was more responsible of its collapse since it is a continuation of Bush's policy.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, Max, but you've totally lost me here.

                I don't see the US economy as liberal, let alone VERY liberal.  Nor is it straight capitalism; experience pretty plainly shows that NONE of the "isms" will work worth a darn in their pure form. 

                But capitalism didn't particularly contribute to the economic collapse; the root cause was the liberals deciding that everyone can own a home without ever paying for it.  That's not capitalism, and it wasn't due to either Bush or Obama.

                1. maxoxam41 profile image79
                  maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The only ism that the world tried was capitalism. Remember the era of southern America dictatorship just to cite one!
                  Who are at the head of governments if not propagandists from the Chicago school of economics. Capitalism is the root of the crisis.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, it is true that capitalism IS the basis for trade between any two entities when there are no interfering agencies.  Between two governments, for instance.  The Louisana or Manhattan Purchases for example.  Or Alaska.

                    Not sure just what crisis you think it is the root of, though - controlled capitalism is pretty well known to produce superior results than any other economic method.

                  2. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Check out the Austrian school of economics: true free-market capitalism of no central-banking, no bail-outs, corporate subsidies, price-fixing, inflationary policies, etc.

                    It is their assertion that it is interventionism combined with capitalism that causes economic destabilisation.

                    How do we deal with this? What is the more ethical act -
                    1. An economic action that is participated in by two willing parties
                    2. An economic action that is participated in by two willing parties and aggressed upon by a third party?

                    It is violence and interventionism that is wrong, not capitalism.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      na·ïve·té

      “William Farone, Philip Morris’s director of applied research from 1976 to 1984, testified, ‘The tobacco industry recognized, even during the time that the companies were publicly denying that the smoke from cigarettes caused disease, that the evidence linking smoking and disease was sufficient scientifically that inhaling cigarette smoke was a cause of disease.’ Farone said that the tobacco companies joined together to form the Tobacco Institute, which sought to amplify the industry’s public relations presence by “not only failing to aid research into questions of smoking and disease, but also increasing the effort to simultaneously deny or distort legitimate science.” {1}

      “A federal judge has ordered Midland, Mich.-based Dow Chemical Co. to pay $1.21 billion in damages after it lost a class-action lawsuit that accused it of conspiring to fix prices.” {2}

      “MASkargo, Cathay Pacific and Thai Airways International have settled with the New Zealand Commerce Commission for fixing air cargo prices between February 2000 and February 2006, paying AU$9.6 million (about US$9.9 million) total in penalties,” {3}

      Without  laws, regulation, and oversight corporate greed and collusion would run rampant.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/06/tob2-j13.html
      {2} http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20 … ixing-case
      {3} http://www.joc.com/air-cargo/internatio … 30423.html

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your reply about China is disingenuous.  I used the example of China's LACK of regulation, along with American history (which was unregulated capitalism) to provide evidence for my point.  If you want to ignore China, and continue ignoring the obvious point about lack of regulation, then you still must answer for American history, and our current pollution problems.

      I could go down a huge list of free market failures (like, say, AIG providing good credit ratings when they weren't so good...).  You have failed to give me anything specific at all about your solutions. 

      Oh companies have "higher" safety standards than the government.  Is that why Wal-Mart and Apple outsource to the places where government lets industry get away with the most horrific abuses of workers?  What are these standards?  Perhaps you haven't read about the Bangladesh factory that collapsed and killed around 1200 people.  You gave no examples at all, and citing one corporation won't do.  If the free-market can fix this, then more corporations should be LEADING the way in safe working conditions, a cleaner planet, and higher pay.

      And the populace "demanding" oversight already happens.  Who says, as a consumer, "I want to buy peanut butter with salmonella in it, or eat chickens that were fed arsenic laced food?"  The FDA exists, but it's overrun with industry hacks, which basically ensures the industry "regulates itself" in some form (since the FDA isn't completely controlled by industry).  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 095030.htm
      Let's not forget either, that BP was "regulating itself," and we won't soon forget what happened there http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-6518694.html. 

      Or, the fact that children, before child labor laws, were working in hazardous conditions.  http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-h … nchimneys/  Where was the free-market solution there?

      The free-market has NO solution to these problems, or they wouldn't still occur.  Child labor still exists! 
      http://library.thinkquest.org/3205/ChildLab.html

      The market fundamentalists like you are the real utopians.  Market failures stare you in the face over and over again, and you continue to still claim the market can regulate itself.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The private sector has come up with more safety innovations than government regulations.

        Pointing to the past is always problematic. Pointing to poorer countries is always problematic. A developing nation would NEVER, EVER be able to develop if it had to go directly from huts to first-world, earthquake-proof buildings. Developments like that take wealth, which takes time to develop.

        In fact, in that kind of society where people took responsibility for themselves, I would be very tempted to create a certification directory... it would be an awesome business.

        Ironically, you point to hazardous scenarios that were created by regulations!!! lol

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you like to assert without evidence?  I asked you specifically for evidence and you are still completely dodging.  I don't know why.  You're an intelligent guy.  You should be able to easily provide it to a poor fool like me.  Provide me some examples of regulations the private sector came up with that the government did not.

          Pointing to the past is problematic?  Are you listening to yourself?  The past had LESS regulations, which is EXACTLY what you are arguing for.  You haven't addressed mine or Quill's points at all.   Are we not to look at past societies to learn from them?  Are you calling into question the very basis of why we ostensibly teach history?

          And how will you deal with the problem of an interlocking directorates of the "certification directory?"  Oh, well you can't regulate it!

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are the one not listening. I explained why pointing to the past is problematic, the premise changes drastically.

            It's easier to deal with free-market corruption than government corruption. If someone wants to screw around in the free market, the competition will overwhelm them.

            The private sector doesn't just come out with a list of regulations. What they do is compete. Improvements are copied, and new improvements are introduced, so free-market 'regulations' are always shifting and improving. Look at cars. Car manufacturers are constantly coming out with new safety features that aren't required. One manufacturer comes up with an idea, and everyone else copies it. The more competition, the more this happens.

            In the past, there wasn't as much competition. Manufacturers in London didn't have to compete as much with manufacturers in the rest of the world like they do today. Like I said, completely different premises.

            The way you guys talk, you would expect every single car to meet government regulations, just barely, and do no more.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Bolivia is in the process of completely expelling Coca-Cola from it's nation, if the market could self regulate Coca-Cola and Chiquita Banana would not be some of the biggest companies in the world, both are involved with destabilizing democratic government, murder of union organizers, massive contamination, water pollution and wiping out several villages through poisoning and water removal (without even getting into things like sweat shops).  It's not like either of those corporations don't have competition.

        If the market could regulate on a moral basis no one would buy their products but obviously it can't.

        Where do all these things happen? In poor countries where nations have not yet instituted regulations against it, why don't they happen here (as much anyway)? Because we have, it happened here before we did.

        Arguing this point is simply laughing in the face of history the number of incidents and companies that can be pointed to that invalidate the libertarian argument are so numerous you could go on listing them for days.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Safety-regulation stuff is often done by private companies in the US anyway, at higher standards than law requires."

      You mean as in West, Texas?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What, want to start a comparative list of failures?  If you want to compare failures, the government is saturated with corruption and failures.

        That has nothing to do with what I posted though, but you would know that if you were actually trying to have a discussion instead of whatever it is you do.

  3. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Come on Quill, you can read, can't you?

    I said the private market can. Not does. Not will. Can.

    can: to be able to do

    The private market will always have the capability to do something better than the government, simply due to the fact that multiple attempts, multiple approaches, and competition lead to efficiencies out of necessity, where monopolies have very little incentive for drastic improvements.

    Having the government regulate everything leads to a lazy, irresponsible population.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. Not only can I read but I know the definition of  "can."

      I think the examples I provided say, better than I can, the private market, in practice, can not. Never has. Never will.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Can not?

        You've gone off the deep end. You seriously just stated that the private market can not be safe on its own?Never has? Well, somebody should go tell EVERY PRIVATE CORPORATION that has safety practices more strict than legally required that they don't exist o.O

        Sorry, using examples in a non-libertarian society to show why libertarianism doesn't work is stupid.

        It's about the same as if you had a society with no regulations, and the government enforced regulations on one company, and then that company folded from having higher costs from everybody... and then you say that proves that regulations cause bankruptcies.

  4. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Libertarians, unlike statists, do not claim any utopian outcome concerning their policy towards building safety and pollution. Libertarians' claims are that the free-market allows for the best opportunity for long-term prosperity and peace, seeing as it encourages cooperation, and best accurately represents the demands of the populace. This means that, under a free-market, our most favoured preferences are met by it first, the second favoured second, and so on.

    Cambodia is an extremely poor country, so even if it did have a free-market (I am not currently aware of the specific kind of barriers to business Cambodia has, but it's far from a lassiez-faire paradise), its main concern will be the feeding, housing and health of the populace, and safety second or third down the line. Under a free-market, food, drink and medicine would get cheaper and allow more resources to go towards keeping working conditions safe - after all, it is not in businesses' interest to have their buildings falling down.

    Now if Cambodia were to adopt regulations requiring businesses to go through safety checks and building standards, this would represent a considerable cost to the business and to the economy as a whole. Firstly, you need to tax in order to put in the bureaucracy, taking away producing capacity, and then there is the time, resources and labour the business needs to go through to meet the rules. If they don't make cuts anywhere else, they will let go of employees. Some businesses will close. Many entrepreneurs will be discouraged from opening businesses. This is a disaster, seeing as more businesses represents more job opportunities, and then businesses have to compete with each other to get the best workers, e.g. by improving working conditions. Only when there is competition and economic growth can there be the resources there to address that. Making it more difficult for businesses to function inhibits their ability to provide food, housing and medicine, let alone safe working conditions, that whether you like it or not is a secondary preference in poor countries. The point is that if there are not enough resources to meet a preference economically, no amount of regulation will change that. Even in countries that do have regulation, buildings fall down, people get injured.

    Libertarians do not claim that all we need is less regulations. You all know this, but none of you can conceive that anybody would want to keep working conditions safe unless there was regulation. This simply represents lack of imagination. Countries like Hong Kong and Singapore do not have excessive regulations, yet are not experiencing buildings falling down every five minutes.

    But ironically, what proves my point best is China. China's disrespect for property rights is a huge contributor to the massive pollution. The Chinese government's approach to economic expansion is to displace poorer communities in order to build the real estate and skyscrapers the corporations need. There is no negotiation nor recourse for these people. The free-market would require competing companies, rather than state privileged ones, and fair negotiation with the communities. Proper enforcement of property rights would give the poorest some kind of recourse about the pollution that corporations cause. At the moment, those concerns are simply inconveniences to the Chinese government-corporate alliance's 'great society' or whatever they call it. Libertarians believe pollution to be a violator of property rights and therefore un-libertarian. When you are being suffocated by the factory next door, the owner of that factory is aggressing against you is therefore legally and morally culpable for the state of your health.

    So no, I don't accept either of these instances as examples of a libertarian paradise nor proof of the need for regulation.

    Fun fact: The US Federal Government is the least environmentally friendly corporation in the United States. Fancy that.

  5. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    That's fine, but it's based on a flawed understanding of the current market. Even now, when the solutions we've talked about aren't encouraged by government or by the public(and they aren't encouraged by the public because the public is like you and is just used to the government watching out for them), but even now, the private sector does much more self-regulation than the government imposes. Almost anything you do or use is controlled more than government regulations require, because the private sector is driven to compete and provide better products and services.

    In a libertarian society, people wouldn't rely on the government, so public pressure would be much greater and that would create the market for these certification companies. Even non-profit ones(but that wouldn't really matter because those tax laws wouldn't exist anyway)

  6. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Basically, you are looking at libertarianism, built on the platform of government control and the consequences of that, rather than looking at real libertarianism.

  7. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    Since we're on the topic of libertarianism, maybe someone can answer a question I've asked several times and never received an answer.  It first came up when a libertarian who used to post here but no longer does was advocating for a private police force.  People would individually contract with police for protection, and pay for a certain level of availability for example.  My question had to do with the protection of children from their parents.  If protection is provided by contract with private businesses, who protects the children who are being abused by their parents?  How would that work?

    Likewise, what about crimes that require a large amount of investment in time and money to investigate and prosecute?  If courts and police are privatized, who would pay for the investigation and prosecution of the murder of a child's parents?  What about the pursuit and capture of a serial killer?  Who would do that and who would pay for it?  And who would take care of a child whose parents are gone?  Who would pay for the care of that child?

    What about crimes of torture against animals?  I'm assuming a libertarian society would have laws against the abuse of animals, but maybe that's a faulty assumption? 

    I've tried to wrap my head around how such situations would be handled in a libertarian world, but maybe it's hard for me to imagine because I've lived within a government system for so long.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I honestly don't know PP. I'm not a 'hardcore' libertarian, I do think that some roles are more efficiently and easily fulfilled by government.

      BUT I think there should be direct civilian oversight over any government agency. That's the big problem.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're talking like a socialist now!

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Uhhh, no.

    2. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Children dying is a minus on society, not just to the parents. There is no reason to say that societies would not pay for services that would deliver proper justice for children. Protective services can do all of the things you cite, and can be paid for by the people that benefit from it.

      Views on animal rights differ from libertarian to libertarian so I cannot deliver a definitive answer on that. There definitely would not be a violent monopoly on that issue. So it would be the case that people could choose between towns that allow or not allow animal abuse. I think, largely, animal abuse would be way down in a libertarian society seeing as people will be allowed to own any animal they like, and would therefore have a vested interest in keeping them safe.

  8. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    More regulations destroying economies:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMeCUVvdZ4

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So, Ron Paul was completely dismissed by the conservative GOP last fall, and has no chance with any of us on the left. As for libertarianism, you are talking about a theory and I repeat theoretical idea that will never see the light of day here in the states, as is the case anywhere else on earth. Short of total revolution, there is just a snowball's chance in hell, perhaps that is why the right clings so tightly to its guns? I can always talk about using a pogo stick to get to the moon, but you know..........

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you're simply arguing that libertarianism has no chance in hell of being accepted by the majority. I would point to the fact that Ron Paul increased his voter-ship by 4 times since 2008, and that he received more donations from individuals in the military than any other candidate in 2012, as evidence that libertarianism is the fastest growing political ideology.

        But if I'm wrong, I don't see the purpose in belabouring the point. It sounds like you're trying to strong-arm me into shutting up instead of addressing the points I'm making. So what if it's a fringe ideology? The important question to ask is this: is it valid?

        There's TONS of free content on these sites if you want to learn what liberty is rather than what you've been taught by the media:
        lewrockwell.com
        mises.org

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't want to strong arm or have the appearance of same, the facts do that for me. . I have seen some of the sites, but I say that freedom and liberty are relative and is not a license for the powerful to steal with impunity from the weaker members of society.  We will have to agree to disagree on most of this stuff, the only thing I like about libertarianism , is its anti military/ reduce  foreign entangelemtns stand, but of course that puts them at odds with the more than beligerant Republican party. I still say that a true liberatarian system is contrary to reality and that reality is not going to change anytime soon.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            " ... is not a license for the powerful to steal with impunity from the weaker members of society."

            Agreed, that's why we oppose government big_smile It sounds like you've gone in with pre-conceived ideas rather than open analysis. Oh well, I'm always open to debate if you have any questions/objections.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "This, along with your graphic, is hardly proof that market pressure lead to lower fatalities. In the years prior to OSHA, regulations were applied incrementally in most industries. Children were not removed from US coalmines because of market pressures. Asbestos was not banned from buildings because of market pressures. Efforts to use safety glass windshields, seat belts, and air bags were all stonewalled by the automobile industry. {2} "

    My direct experience in the U.S. auto industry pre- and post- OSHA is that OSHA made a significant improvement in the incidence of accidents and in record keeping. In order to forestall OSHA complaints the auto companies negotiated joint plant-level union-management health and safety committees after OSHA was passed. These committees also contributed to improvements in health and safety in the auto industry. It so happens that I negotiated the first such union-management health and safety committee between GM and UAW in 1973 following the passage of OSHA, and I participated in the development of a training program for union and management safety representatives.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1 Thanks for your input, Ralph.

 
working