The Biggest Flaw in Libertarianism

We have zoos. Seriously I don't think my life nor the future of the planet will be affected if we lose a few species, especially since it's estimated that 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct.

 

Panda's going extinct is a whole other ball game compared to elephants or honey bee's going down the pipes...

 

It's so hard for progressives to see that the upper echelon of ruling snakes do not work for them. They grant the benefits to the bottom-feeders to keep them feeding, but ultimately the populous has never gotten a leader to represent the interests of the people.

Liberty has always been a fight against the ruling class of bureaucrats and their wealthy partners. Do you think that Americans asked for more British governance and higher taxes on the American rich before the revolution? No, they said get the hell off our continent.

 

But we have hunted a number of species to extinction, haven't we?

 

I think a lot of them did ask for more British governance, come to think of it, since the British were their protection and support. And higher taxes on the rich ... well, the poor people probably that was a good idea.

 

What is wrong about calculating costs? We, normal people, do that all the time, not at a strict mathematical level, but at the very least at an intuitive level, whenever we decide to drive over 10 MPH, whenever we decide to go snowboarding or skiing, whenever we decide to cross a road and so on, whenever we decide a certain doctor should be responsible for our lives. That argument of yours is just appealing to emotions. By the way, you know what is ironic about that? It is that doctors are sued in the US if they forget even a most insignificant exam (but extremely expansive) that could "increase the person's chances of surviving" (according to your logic that is the only thing that matters), but look what has happened throughout history when doctors stopped doing those things http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article981.html.

 

They were as wrong then as they are now if they wanted to tax the wealthy, considering where that tax would have gone...in both cases. Added advantage now is that Warren-the-higher-tax-crying-Buffett had his portfolio saved by bailout money. He counts on you being stupid and listening to him. Don't be stupid.

 

The problem with regulations is that you have to trust the people doing the regulating. The problem with not regulating is pretty much most people are selfish, greedy bastards.

It's a tightrope, Spud...a tightrope.

 

Just kidding guys, you called my bluff. They really do care about me, I can see it in their smiles. Every bank is too big to fail or else the world would explode. Just the advancement of time means that we need authoracrats at higher and higher levels.

They really love each and every citizen, I know. For Obama tells me so. Every bomb and plane is worth the billion we spent, Iraq really benefited our good partners China so much.

Really, I question free world trade, but agree with libertarians that free trade can be established on a napkin. These trade "deals" are between large corporations and them only.

 

Because that is incredibly disruptive to society. Weren't right wingers the ones that were always screaming about "uncertainty?" How does it add certainty to society if you can be fired at any time with no cause. Would you get a mortgage or a car note or a cell phone contract? I wouldn't. Also how would unemployment insurance work in that scenario?

 

Look at the bright side, if you could be fired at any time, we wouldn't have a president for longer than a month.

I don't know what to think about libertarians and their true adherence to the philosophy of liberty. I sort of agree with progressive liberals who choose the tyrannical approach to equality, neglecting liberty.

But what do I know, I'm an anarchist. Not some communist pseudo-anarchist, but a wild wild west anarchist.

 

You can be fired at any time anyway, your employer just can't use race, sex, religion, etc as a reason. I don't really see much of a change. Maybe some people would lose their job if the law changed, but I guarantee that if an employer doesn't like an employee they will find a reason to get rid of them no matter what requirements are put in place. Such laws diminish property rights (of the business owner) as well as the right to free association.

As for unemployment insurance I don't see how that would be a factor. As it works now you get it if you are 'let go of,' as in you are released for issues other than discipline, and certainly getting rid of someone for being, say, green ((*)(*)(*)(*) Kermit) isn't really a discipline measure, so I don't see why they would not be able to claim unemployment insurance. Not really a fan of unemployment; I'd rather it just be an account that some of your money goes into that you can access any time you are unemployed (with the ability to say loan $2000 at 0 interest for people who don't have the account built up). The problem with such a system though is that congress would simply take our money, well just look at social security.

 

It's not about "calculating costs". It's a cost-benefit analysis but the components of the analysis are important. The number of deaths caused by faulty design may cost $X in damages from lawsuits, the company estimates that the cost of fixing the fault would be $X plus a factor Y which is greater than the cost of the lawsuits, so the company decides to defend and/or settle on the lawsuits rather than fix the problem as going the lawsuits path is cheaper. Problem is that people are going to be killed and seriously injured because of the design fault that isn't going to be fixed. If the Libertarian argument is that eventually the company will either go broke or decide that it should fix the design fault as damages are getting close to the $X plus Y then it shows that the Libertarian argument isn't at all concerned with human suffering. If that's the argumen then let it be explained.

 

So, on balance, it's better to have regulations and regulators, than not.

 

I think regulations (and regulators) are ultimately necessary, but they have to be ones you can trust. The theory goes that by electing them, we can trust them. But I have to admit, that's not working out so well.

 

Regulations are supposed to promote productivity while limiting negative externalities. In the context of complexity theory, regulations rarely accomplish such. In fact, they often promote homogeneity, negative robustness, and negative innovation, leading to a lack of productivity, or exorbitant productivity. Either way, they make it harder not easier for business to gain an adequate rate of return or marginal benefit, while not limiting negative externalities.

 

In the US we don't really elect the regulators.

We do elect the people who make the laws and who hire the regulators, and for most elected officials thats where their responsibility ends. The process of hiring regulators is somewhat of a mystery to me. I assume qualified regulators come from the same type of business they are expected to regulate, this is understandable because anyone ignorant of the actual business processes of the companies in question would be useless.

But here is the problem-- people who work for the government but also have knowledge and ties to business must be almost impossibly tempted to use their influence for self improvement; in other words they trade a blind eye for guaranteed positions in the same companies they are supposed to be watching.

I do not think getting rid of all regulations is any kind of solution (anymore than I would consider suicide a solution for bad health). The frustrating thing is that no elected official tries to do anything to remedy this problem, we just get endless rhetoric.

 

Regulation is a bit like advertising, you'd miss it if it weren't there

 

As someone who was initially considering majoring in advertising and design in college, I can say that at some point, advertising, like regulation becomes nauseating.

 

It's called corruption and it can be dealt with. It's why police forces have internal investigative divisions. I would think that various US governments would have similar agencies which routinely kept an eye on the behaviour of the regulators (the regulators in the sense of the word as you are using it) to keep them honest, on a day to day basis I mean, not simply the rather spectacular legislative inquiries that run from time to time.

 

True enough, but that's down to a surfeit, I was referencing complete absence.

 

A complete lack of regulation is certainly not desirable. The anarcho-capitalist ideal that there can be spontaneous order due to adversarial factors that counteract each other to produce stability is incredibly idealistic.

 

Buffalo nearly went extinct once it was made illegal to herd them. People still hunted them, but at an increased rate. They took what they could get quickly from the carcass and got off the scene. Regulation usually produces unwanted incentives causing effects that sometimes turn out to be the opposite of what was intended by the regulation. Like if you write a law that makes it illegal to develop land on which a certain owl has been seen. Some guy starts to build a swimming pool behind his house. He pays to have a big hole dug, and then sees something that looks like that owl. He now has an incentive to shoot the owl and bury it under the new hole in his yard.

 

It doesn't. But surly you know how it actually works in at-will employment states. You've been hired before, haven't you? Remember, the company showed you a written policy that laid out what exactly they expected of you, how you could get promoted, what would get you penalized and what would get you fired, and so on?

 

This is right on the money, and a flaw I've noticed in conservative and libertarian positions myself. With a central government, you always run the risk of collusion, but at least you have options. In a true free market with limited government, you are at the mercy of whichever corporate entities wield the most power, at all times, with no recourse. Look at all the corruption and high crime that occurs WITH government regulation here, and we still don't bust all of it, or even most of it. Imagine if there were less rules, less oversight, less transparency(who's going to enforce the transparency if there is no strong government entity?). It's a true recipe for disaster, and part of why Ron Paul is such a dangerous man. This is the path he wants to walk down.