The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[The Rabbi]

Every election except the twelve terms he spent in congress. I guess those elections weren't the ones you were referring to in this case. because it makes your argument ridiculous.

Yeah, outside of his little Texas congressional district he has lost every election he's ever run in. That makes him a loser. He is the Harold Stassen of the Narco-libtards.

I think nearly every politician has lost an election at one time or another. Rick Perry got his ass handed to him so he must be a loser. Mitt Romney lost at least twice that I know of. Every single person that I know you've supported is a loser by your standards.

Rick Perry never lost an election prior to this run. Mitt Romney won 12 primaries last time, in addition ot his terms as governor.
Paul has yet to win any primary, in two election cycles.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone can list a bunch of companies.
Show how this list proves your assertion.

So all of those companies have been found guilty of the above (okay, maybe not Chrysler). Does anyone really believe that those companies would have spent the millions of dollars necessary to make their products or practices safer / fairer without government imposed consequences? The only people I know who do, are Libertarians.

Let me make this clear: I THINK WE OVER-REGULATE IN MANY CASES. Is that clear? Good.

But the idea that "The Market" will for example, prevent drug companies from literally killing people, is beyond naive. yet that is exactly what many libertarians claim.

Now, rather than constantly dodging, deflecting etc... perhaps you or other Libertarians would like to provide all those examples to the contrary?

I do give you credit btw. No petty insults or projecting inaccurate extremes. That certainly sets you far above the bottom-feeders who often have nothing but such prattle as responses.

So if a company made unsafe products, provided unsafe services, or worked people to death would you continue to give them your money or would you seek a better alternative?

If the answer seems like common sense, it is, and that's why we're libertarians.

You mis-spelled "conservatives".

 

[Dr.Drock]

So all of those companies have been found guilty of the above (okay, maybe not Chrysler). Does anyone really believe that those companies would have spent the millions of dollars necessary to make their products or practices safer / fairer without government imposed consequences? The only people I know who do, are Libertarians.

Let me make this clear: I THINK WE OVER-REGULATE IN MANY CASES. Is that clear? Good.

But the idea that "The Market" will for example, prevent drug companies from literally killing people, is beyond naive. yet that is exactly what many libertarians claim.

Now, rather than constantly dodging, deflecting etc... perhaps you or other Libertarians would like to provide all those examples to the contrary?

I do give you credit btw. No petty insults or projecting inaccurate extremes. That certainly sets you far above the bottom-feeders who often have nothing but such prattle as responses.

So if a company made unsafe products, provided unsafe services, or worked people to death would you continue to give them your money or would you seek a better alternative?

If the answer seems like common sense, it is, and that's why we're libertarians.

You mis-spelled "conservatives".

No, I spelled conservatives correctly. One of us is voting for someone who wants gov't out of healthcare, the other isn't, making one of us a conservative, and the other not.

And you can make the same comparison with dozens of other industries and which of us are voting for the pro-regulation type.

 

[The Rabbi]

So if a company made unsafe products, provided unsafe services, or worked people to death would you continue to give them your money or would you seek a better alternative?

If the answer seems like common sense, it is, and that's why we're libertarians.

You mis-spelled "conservatives".

No, I spelled conservatives correctly. One of us is voting for someone who wants gov't out of healthcare, the other isn't, making one of us a conservative, and the other not.

And you can make the same comparison with dozens of other industries and which of us are voting for the pro-regulation type.

Except this thread has nothing to do with the election.
I am voting for someone with a chance to win and although I am not in favor of a lot of what he stands for I believe I will be better off having him as president than the likely alternative.
You want to live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land and vote for the Easter Bunny.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You mis-spelled "conservatives".

No, I spelled conservatives correctly. One of us is voting for someone who wants gov't out of healthcare, the other isn't, making one of us a conservative, and the other not.

And you can make the same comparison with dozens of other industries and which of us are voting for the pro-regulation type.

Except this thread has nothing to do with the election.
I am voting for someone with a chance to win and although I am not in favor of a lot of what he stands for I believe I will be better off having him as president than the likely alternative.
You want to live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land and vote for the Easter Bunny.

Thank you for not disagreeing with anything I said, a good tactic.

The exact things you're bitching about on this thread, you'll be voting for in November.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I spelled conservatives correctly. One of us is voting for someone who wants gov't out of healthcare, the other isn't, making one of us a conservative, and the other not.

And you can make the same comparison with dozens of other industries and which of us are voting for the pro-regulation type.

Except this thread has nothing to do with the election.
I am voting for someone with a chance to win and although I am not in favor of a lot of what he stands for I believe I will be better off having him as president than the likely alternative.
You want to live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land and vote for the Easter Bunny.

Thank you for not disagreeing with anything I said, a good tactic.

The exact things you're bitching about on this thread, you'll be voting for in November.

Mitt Romney wants to do away with capitalism? Who knew?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Without government regulation, companies hurt people

that of course is liberal and very very very stupid!!

Red China had tons of regulation and it killed 60 million!! Is that hurting people? When they deregulated to capitalist regulation people started to get rich.

A liberal will make the perfectly stupid assumption that all regulation will be good as if the regulators are more saintly than the businessmen!

if a few communist or liberal regulators can get information with which to manage companies then so can consumers who manage with purchase decisions. Who would you trust more??


Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".

Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!

“Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”-Alan Greenspan

 

[Dr.Drock]

Except this thread has nothing to do with the election.
I am voting for someone with a chance to win and although I am not in favor of a lot of what he stands for I believe I will be better off having him as president than the likely alternative.
You want to live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land and vote for the Easter Bunny.

Thank you for not disagreeing with anything I said, a good tactic.

The exact things you're bitching about on this thread, you'll be voting for in November.

Mitt Romney wants to do away with capitalism? Who knew?

We don't have free market capitalism now, he agrees with keeping heavy gov't involvement (regulations) in the economy.

You knew, and you'll vote for him anyways, as that agrees with your idealogy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thank you for not disagreeing with anything I said, a good tactic.

The exact things you're bitching about on this thread, you'll be voting for in November.

Mitt Romney wants to do away with capitalism? Who knew?

We don't have free market capitalism now, he agrees with keeping heavy gov't involvement (regulations) in the economy.

You knew, and you'll vote for him anyways, as that agrees with your idealogy.

Wrong on every count. Wow.

You'd rather vote for Capn' Crunch.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Mitt Romney wants to do away with capitalism? Who knew?

We don't have free market capitalism now, he agrees with keeping heavy gov't involvement (regulations) in the economy.

You knew, and you'll vote for him anyways, as that agrees with your idealogy.

Wrong on every count. Wow.

You'd rather vote for Capn' Crunch.

Yep, I would rather vote for Captain Crunch. Better to vote for someone fake than someone who wants to continue with sky high gov't regulations.

 

[The Rabbi]

We don't have free market capitalism now, he agrees with keeping heavy gov't involvement (regulations) in the economy.

You knew, and you'll vote for him anyways, as that agrees with your idealogy.

Wrong on every count. Wow.

You'd rather vote for Capn' Crunch.

Yep, I would rather vote for Captain Crunch. Better to vote for someone fake than someone who wants to continue with sky high gov't regulations.

OK, so you support Cap'n Crunch in the upcoming election.
Got it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Your argument is a very long-winded way of getting to that end.

The entire basis of outright protection rackets like the FDA is a shining example of how the "the market isn't self-correcting" argument turns into a "cure" far worse than the disease.

Your cited examples in this area are completely irrelevant, as the normal market forces have been so horribly skewed and burdened with over-regulation and bureaucracy, that the classical market paradigm doesn't even apply.

As you have been beat over the head with the fact before, and are getting beat with it again...The claim that the free market doesn't work, when it isn't even in play in the first place, is specious on its face.

How many times does this elementary fact need to be explained to you, before you'll get it through your thick fucking head?

Hmmm. More fluff. Lots of claims but zero fact or substance. Just petty insults that reflect a weakness of character. I guess you just can't help being you.
So okay, Like most of your little club, you're entirely full of it here. Easy enough to prove. Cite examples of all these companies and industries that were so self-correcting prior to regulation. Textile industry stopped using child labor & sweatshops on it's own, did it? Slave owners all freed them because it was the right thing to do? BofA stopped illegally foreclosing on our TROOPS while they were overseas before the govt stepped in and put a halt to it? No? Like I said.

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't ...[because]... The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

]

A photo eh? Wow. The intellectual prowess of Libertarians in this thread is proving to be nearly as impressive as that of a gnat. Well, maybe not that impressive. Seriously, there really hasn't been much that makes sense. But hey! You came up with a picture of a bicycle! Well NOW people will stop saying that Libertarians are a bunch of whackjobs and take you seriously! Not. Disappointing. The Libertarians i've met irl were civil and intelligent. Obviously none of them are here.

How many people died prior to FDA? SOme, not many. Probably not "thousands." And certainly "thousands" from one company.
So I guess the FDA keeps us safe from bad drugs? Oops, Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How many people have died because FDA did NOT approve life saving drugs because they were too worried about a Thalidomide repeat? Lots.
You've failed to prove your point. Actually you've proved the opposite, because drug companies producing dangerous products that killed the consumer quickly went out of business.

You're wrong. Eli Lilly has produced dozens of harmful drugs that hurt or even killed people. They still exist. Pfizer? Same thing. Amgen? Yup? Then laws (or regulations) were implemented and things got better.

.

You've just refuted your own point. The FDA approved those drugs in every case, so regulation didnt help. And "it would have been worse" is unprovable.
Nor does making one mistake mean the company will go out of business, necessarily.
Your reasoning gets weaker and weaker here.

Jayzuz dude, are you really so daft that you don't realize you just reinforced my point for me? Seriously? This is getting comical.
For every bad drug that gets through, THOUSANDS are stopped during rounds 1 or 2. What you just showed is that the FDA simply doesn't have the manpower to catch everything, all the time so it should be INCREASED.
Does this mean they will never miss anything? No. They'll just catch more harmfull drugs before they get to market.

How stupid or blinded by ideology do you have to be, to believe this kind of logic:

5 FDA agents are able to catch and stop 83 out of 100 bad drugs.
10 FDA agents can catch 91 out of 100.
Therefore the solution catching more bad drugs is to eliminate all the FDA agents.

 

[dblack]

We don't have free market capitalism now, he agrees with keeping heavy gov't involvement (regulations) in the economy.

You knew, and you'll vote for him anyways, as that agrees with your idealogy.

Wrong on every count. Wow.

You'd rather vote for Capn' Crunch.

Yep, I would rather vote for Captain Crunch. Better to vote for someone fake than someone who wants to continue with sky high gov't regulations.

Fortunately, there are other alternatives.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Wrong on every count. Wow.

You'd rather vote for Capn' Crunch.

Yep, I would rather vote for Captain Crunch. Better to vote for someone fake than someone who wants to continue with sky high gov't regulations.

Fortunately, there are other alternatives.

I know, it's just Rabbi stuck in the Robama/Obamney world.

Well for now, next week he could renounce his support for Romney and support someone else, depending on what his puppet string pullers tell him to think.

 

[bayoubill]

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

okay... I'll give it a shot...

in a truly unfettered marketplace, where competition is allowed to flourish, the market would tend to correct itself, and little if any government regulation would be needed...

problems arise when government gives special consideration to a select few large companies, via legislative action that stifles competition... which ultimately creates virtual monopolies in certain sectors of the economy... not to mention creating companies that are "too big to fail"...

if you look at the record, you would find that the companies that are most needing "regulation" are the very same companies that became artificially huge due to favorable government actions on their behalf...


regarding concerns about unsafe working conditions, toxic dumping, harmful products, etc., these would rightly be addressed by property-rights and liability laws, which do not constitute regulation, as such, but come under the judicial protections afforded us by a properly-functioning government...

 

[rightwinger]

 

[bayoubill]

lol... too funny... thanks for posting that again, RW...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The market will correct itself?

If it didn't we'd be living back in the stone age rather than moving forward with Iphones and GPSs.

The market is the miracle that got us here. Before China had it ( when they relied on regulation) 60 million slowly starved to death. That a liberal can't grasp this is testimony to their pure ignorance.

 

[Oddball]

Your argument is a very long-winded way of getting to that end.

The entire basis of outright protection rackets like the FDA is a shining example of how the "the market isn't self-correcting" argument turns into a "cure" far worse than the disease.

Your cited examples in this area are completely irrelevant, as the normal market forces have been so horribly skewed and burdened with over-regulation and bureaucracy, that the classical market paradigm doesn't even apply.

As you have been beat over the head with the fact before, and are getting beat with it again...The claim that the free market doesn't work, when it isn't even in play in the first place, is specious on its face.

How many times does this elementary fact need to be explained to you, before you'll get it through your thick fucking head?

Hmmm. More fluff. Lots of claims but zero fact or substance. Just petty insults that reflect a weakness of character. I guess you just can't help being you.
So okay, Like most of your little club, you're entirely full of it here. Easy enough to prove. Cite examples of all these companies and industries that were so self-correcting prior to regulation. Textile industry stopped using child labor & sweatshops on it's own, did it? Slave owners all freed them because it was the right thing to do? BofA stopped illegally foreclosing on our TROOPS while they were overseas before the govt stepped in and put a halt to it? No? Like I said.

No fluff, FACT....That and your impenetrably thick fucking skull.

You're the schmuck who tossed around all the strawmen and got your ass kicked...You don't get to try to turn it back around and invoke tired old saws like child labor laws and slavery as your silver bullets.

Fact remains that there are no truly free markets in pharmaceuticals, medical care and public utilities....So your bonheaded assertion that the market isn't self-correcting, by using examples where market forces aren't applicable to "prove" such, is a towering and completely unanalytical failure.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your argument is a very long-winded way of getting to that end.

The entire basis of outright protection rackets like the FDA is a shining example of how the "the market isn't self-correcting" argument turns into a "cure" far worse than the disease.

Your cited examples in this area are completely irrelevant, as the normal market forces have been so horribly skewed and burdened with over-regulation and bureaucracy, that the classical market paradigm doesn't even apply.

As you have been beat over the head with the fact before, and are getting beat with it again...The claim that the free market doesn't work, when it isn't even in play in the first place, is specious on its face.

How many times does this elementary fact need to be explained to you, before you'll get it through your thick fucking head?

Hmmm. More fluff. Lots of claims but zero fact or substance. Just petty insults that reflect a weakness of character. I guess you just can't help being you.
So okay, Like most of your little club, you're entirely full of it here. Easy enough to prove. Cite examples of all these companies and industries that were so self-correcting prior to regulation. Textile industry stopped using child labor & sweatshops on it's own, did it? Slave owners all freed them because it was the right thing to do? BofA stopped illegally foreclosing on our TROOPS while they were overseas before the govt stepped in and put a halt to it? No? Like I said.

]

A photo eh? Wow. The intellectual prowess of Libertarians in this thread is proving to be nearly as impressive as that of a gnat. Well, maybe not that impressive. Seriously, there really hasn't been much that makes sense. But hey! You came up with a picture of a bicycle! Well NOW people will stop saying that Libertarians are a bunch of whackjobs and take you seriously! Not. Disappointing. The Libertarians i've met irl were civil and intelligent. Obviously none of them are here.

You're wrong. Eli Lilly has produced dozens of harmful drugs that hurt or even killed people. They still exist. Pfizer? Same thing. Amgen? Yup? Then laws (or regulations) were implemented and things got better.

.

You've just refuted your own point. The FDA approved those drugs in every case, so regulation didnt help. And "it would have been worse" is unprovable.
Nor does making one mistake mean the company will go out of business, necessarily.
Your reasoning gets weaker and weaker here.

Jayzuz dude, are you really so daft that you don't realize you just reinforced my point for me? Seriously? This is getting comical.
For every bad drug that gets through, THOUSANDS are stopped during rounds 1 or 2. What you just showed is that the FDA simply doesn't have the manpower to catch everything, all the time so it should be INCREASED.
Does this mean they will never miss anything? No. They'll just catch more harmfull drugs before they get to market.

How stupid or blinded by ideology do you have to be, to believe this kind of logic:

5 FDA agents are able to catch and stop 83 out of 100 bad drugs.
10 FDA agents can catch 91 out of 100.
Therefore the solution catching more bad drugs is to eliminate all the FDA agents.

You have a grossly, to the point of downright incorrect, view of the FDA and how it functions.
FDA "agents" do not catch and stop bad drugs. That is just 2nd grade stupid.
And you are falling back on the "it could have been worse" argument, which is unproved and unprovable.