The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[IndependntLogic]

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?
Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

 

[saveliberty]

Which one of you guys tore down Indepentlogic's flag and burned it? Stay away from those police cars...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?
Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

No amount of Govt. regulations will prevent deaths in industry.

 

[Avorysuds]

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?
Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

No amount of Govt. regulations will prevent deaths in industry.

The OP seems to think so... Even when he gave a list proving himself wrong. Fun as hell to watch.

 

[Avorysuds]

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?
Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

A responce about *Privet* Unions please... Or did I answer the question too well for you?

 

[saveliberty]

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?
Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

It is illogical to suggest that no free market correction will take place unless you use a free market as a study. It is illogical to suggest laws were not in place to cover the death of person(s). In fact, you are giving a completely emotional response to the issue.

None of the prior government actions had anything to do with what consumers achieved with the fee issues. It was definitely a business decision. There is nothing to support your claim.

 

[Avorysuds]

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

In response to the bolded.

Yes, probably. If GM for example didn't receive bail outs then they would have had to do JUST want you claimed the free market wouldn't do when you put GM on your list. GM would have had to go under OR diversify, change their product to match what the public would buy and invest better rather than greedily. The Union at GM is a great example of a Union destroying a business and ultimately destroying the jobs it was once created to help.

Now in a “free market” or at least a ‘more free market,” the Union would have had to either make cuts or die off. Gm would have had to make cuts or die off… This is the correction, the liquidation of bad debt. It’s so incredibly simple to understand it hurts my brain to have to explain it to you.

Just think evolution with animals… It’s literally the same concept.
.

 

[Avorysuds]

? Op ?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?
Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

Don't use banks - I don't....

 

[Oddball]

In response to the bolded.

Yes, probably. If GM for example didn't receive bail outs then they would have had to do JUST want you claimed the free market wouldn't do when you put GM on your list. GM would have had to go under OR diversify, change their product to match what the public would buy and invest better rather than greedily. The Union at GM is a great example of a Union destroying a business and ultimately destroying the jobs it was once created to help.

Now in a “free market” or at least a ‘more free market,” the Union would have had to either make cuts or die off. Gm would have had to make cuts or die off… This is the correction, the liquidation of bad debt. It’s so incredibly simple to understand it hurts my brain to have to explain it to you.

Just think evolution with animals… It’s literally the same concept.
.

I also noted that he had several pharm companies and medical care outfits in his little list, which operate as little more than toadies for federal regulatory protection rackets.

Speaking of which, pharm companies spend more than $500 million and spend sometimes as much as a decade cutting through all the FDA red tape to get their products deemed "safe and effective". Then when things like Vioxx end up killing people, the FDA is held entirely blameless.

But it's the eeeevil corporations that are getting away with all this malfeasance in the marketplace.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

I thought your thread topic would be about libertarian ‘foreign policy.’ So there are at least two big flaws in libertarianism.

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

Correct.

And this is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad,’ it’s just the way it is.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Okay lots of replies although not much of substance. However, Will address what I can directly and without returning the petty insults to which those lower on the discussion food chain, seem prone.

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

History proves that government will jump in before the process can take place. A strong centralized government is only necessary to control business AND citizens. Not a good trade off.

You hardly seem prepared to debate honestly, if you reread your post.

if by "control", you mean define what constitutes a criminal act, then SURE, I want government to do that as well. The fact the government regulations are in place but oftentimes, there is insufficient regulation or enforcement, does nothing to prove that companies won't commit egregious acts, if there are no regulatory consequences for doing so.

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

How many of the companies you just listed receive tax payer money? They are no longer in that realm of “privet sector”. In fact you just destroyed Government intervention as the answer.

How does the fact that some (definitely not all) of the companies above receive taxpayer money, prove that companies will not for example, dump toxic waste if there are no consequences? It doesn't.

To answer your question, Unions… Unions are the answer or at least one of the answers. People don’t like the companies so they banded together and demanded better conditions, products, pay, retirement and so on.

Well sure. Unions definitely provided what was needed before government regulation addressed things like working conditions, child labor etc...

Public Unions are entirely different and Unions in general have a course that they will run. At first a Union can be very good, but like any business at some point Unions can be doing more harm than good.

There, you have been schooled.

Bye…
"Schooled"??? LOL! Well I guess you feel all special and such but unfortunately, you completely failed to show that regulation of business is not necessary to prevent things like dangerous or fatal drugs being sold (hardly something a union could address), Exxon Valdez, BP Oil spill, Wal-Mart discrimination etc... So I can see why you would take off. However, if you want to take another crack it, feel welcome.

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.

Nice, you ask us what our views are then you immediately discount them. I can tell you are willing to listen. Not.

I am sharing a view I have heard from Libertarians repeatedly and letting you know why I find it to be flawed. It seems your problem is that uou are not open to having your views challenged.

"The Market Will Correct Itself".

I don't know what Libertarians you are talking to, but when I use that statement, I'm talking about thinks like stocks, or bankruptsies, or economic downturns.

Again, I don't know who YOU are talking to, but this Libertarian knows that customers only respond to price, quality, and service. If a company's bad practices lead to any drop in those three things, then the customers will go elsewhere. Which CAN happen if a company doesn't play nice. For example, it's employees could do shoddy workmanship, or give poor service if the company doesn't treat them right. For you to say it will never happen is ignorant.

You are discussing something that I'm not. I won't say you're "ignorant" just because you seem not to understand the point of the OP. However this paragraph (which I agree with, btw) seems to indicate that is the case.

First of all, no intelligent Libertarian is going to tell you that there should be no regulations on industry. I suspect that you are either making the error of using a broad brush or you are a partisan idiot. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Should I write things like "Either you're an ignorant whackjob or you disagree with all Libertarians on this issue. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt." Nah. I'll leave insults, implied or direct, to those who are lacking substance on the topic.
So I hear many Libertarians say we should get rid of the regulations that hurt business, as well as the agencies that enforce them e.g. EPA, NRC, SEC etc... Do you disagree with them?

No, it is as far from fact as you can be. The truth is that it does correct companies, just not always.

The truth is demonstrated by fact. I claimed that once a company becomes big enough, it RARELY suffers the consequences of harming citizens unless through regulation. So let's see if you can back your claim. Name a dozen companies in the Fortune 100 that have not been found guilty of criminal offenses against citizens, denying health benefits that were paid for, producing drugs or products that killed people etc... You can't.

Um, when have companies been left alone? You have no proof of your statement. history proves nothing of the sort.

See above comment. I just did. You completely fail to effective counter my point.

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

Now, here's where you really will get the ire of any Libertarian up. We don't need a strong centralized government to take care of us. the only thing a strong centralized government will do is control our lives and take away our liberties. maybe YOU like to be baby-sat by the government, I'll take my freedom and the risks that come with it.

I hear this battle Cry of Libertarians often. I enjoy all the freedom I like. I own a business, have a nice life, travel without restriction and so on. What are these freedoms that have taken from you personally and how have you been oppressed?

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

LOL! You insult us in your first paragraph and you last one, then you call for civility? That's rich! well, there's my response. Cheers.

You must be very sensitive or something. What was so insutling to you in the first paragraph?

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?
It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.

You seem unable to grasp the point. Every company in America falls under some kind of regulatory code but there are times when MORE regulation is necessary. The point is that Libertarians seem to think that if BP spills oil into the gulf, the market will just make the company disappear or that companies will always just do the right thing, so there is no need for regulating business. Or that Pfizer won't make dangerous drugs if we just leave them alone. That is the point. Can you address that?

We have the extreme of wanting all activity regulated asking for a debate with the extreme of NO activity regulated. Neither one is right and neither one can make valid arguments for their point of view.

I don't want ALL activity regulated. Did you see that anywhere in my post? No.

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric -Quasi monopoly.
Skadden Arps -Bunch of lawyers...Big surprise.
General Electric -Has head so far up the fed's ass they could lick Boiking's tonsils.
Exxon
Ford - Never heard of the Pinto lawsuit that cost them a pretty penny, have you?
GM -Been bailed out numerouus times.
Chrysler -Ditto.
Pfizer -Payola merchants in the protection racket schemes known as the FDA and Medicare D.
Eli Lilly- Ibid.
Kaiser- Ibid.
Blue Cross - Ibid.
Most of the Fortune 100 - Not specific, as asked for.
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

Pretty shit examples of so-called "free market" operators.

Hmm. As usual, nothing of substance here.

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

You realize that all of this happened WITH government regulations right? So how does our huge centralized government stop this shit? It doesn't apparently. It just takes away our liberties.

By your logic, the answer would be to simply NOT regulate them, which is ludicrous. The problem we had in the above cases was that we didn't have ENOUGH regulation or ENOUGH manpower to enforce the regs.

OP had a weak argument with many preconditions. Fail.

Nothing of substance. No counterpoint. Failure to back up anything claimed. Next.

You offer an illogical response. Of course they had oversight. And after they hurt or killed people they had MORE oversight.
You think they would have acted more responsibly if they had LESS oversight?
Obviously that is not the case.

Oh, and to the poster who mentioned the banks reducing one type of fee, I assume you mean banks like BofA, Wells Fargo and Citibank, who have all been found guilty of fraud, illegal foreclosures etc... Those banks, right?
Again, do you think they would commit less of those acts, if there were no government enforced consequences?
There is nothing to support that belief.

No amount of Govt. regulations will prevent deaths in industry.

Actually, you're wrong here. Safety regulations have prevented thousands of deaths every year. Requiring drugs to be tested before distribution has also saved thousands of lives. The examples go on ad infinitum.

The OP seems to think so... Even when he gave a list proving himself wrong. Fun as hell to watch.

Hmmm. Last post offers nothing of substance and no counterpoint, let alone anything to support it.

So apparently this is too difficult for some people to grasp. I'll try to simplfy a bit.

1. I don't think EVERYTHING should be regulated in every way. Projecting an extreme on those of differing views is the sign of a weak debater.
2. All companies that operate in the USA fall under at least SOME kind of laws. The fact that they have always been regulated, doesn't mean that we never discuss the need for further regulation. There was no SUCH THING as a phramcuetical industry. Then one came along and we learned as we went along. One of the things we learned was that bad drugs kill people. So we regulated them. Then required them to do trials to prove drugs were safe and what side effects might occur. Is this really so difficult to understand?
So the point is, Many (see the word "many", as in not all!) Libertarians seem to think if we just left companies alone, things like the drug example wouldn't occur because "The Market" would take care of it.
That is not supported by current fact or history.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

So your complaint is that if a company has one dissatisfied customer they won't go out of business, and therefore the free market theory is wrong?
Really?
That's pretty ******* simplistic. Even for you.
And that isn't a narco-libertarian idea. That's a conservative idea.

 

[Avorysuds]

The OP can't be helped. He got things his way, the US has a MASSIVE central Government body that wield near unlimited power these days, The Government spends, picks winners and losers and regulates as the OP said near everything... Yet we have the housing crash, the .com crash and many other bubbles in the past and surly more in the future.

We are looking at the college bubble heading towards it's inevitable crash as well... All brought to you by people that assure you they are smarter than you then make horrible expensive mistake after another.

As I said, the OP has it his way, so why is he bitching? Oh I know, because it’s not working and the only he won’t do it take blame. What we get is "It's all Small Governments fault!!!" As the deficit rises due to more Government programs being released all aimed at bring balance to the budget!

This new program will save American's 300 billion a year!!!!

 

[Avorysuds]

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

So your complaint is that if a company has one dissatisfied customer they won't go out of business, and therefore the free market theory is wrong?
Really?

He has no clue what he is talking about at all... He is literally making the case that Free markets will have ups and downs as to why we need to spend trillions and pass massive Government regulations so that we get .... ups and downs.... Oh and huge deficits.

 

[The Rabbi]

The OP can't be helped. He got things his way, the US has a MASSIVE central Government body that wield near unlimited power these days, The Government spends, picks winners and losers and regulates as the OP said near everything... Yet we have the housing crash, the .com crash and many other bubbles in the past and surly more in the future.

We are looking at the college bubble heading towards it's inevitable crash as well... All brought to you by people that assure you they are smarter than you then make horrible expensive mistake after another.

As I said, the OP has it his way, so why is he bitching? Oh I know, because it’s not working and the only he won’t do it take blame. What we get is "It's all Small Governments fault!!!" As the deficit rises due to more Government programs being released all aimed at bring balance to the budget!

This new program will save American's 300 billion a year!!!!

The laugh is that in the most controlled economies they have even more pollution and industrial accidents because there is no responsibility.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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

So your complaint is that if a company has one dissatisfied customer they won't go out of business, and therefore the free market theory is wrong?
Really?
That's pretty ******* simplistic. Even for you.
And that isn't a narco-libertarian idea. That's a conservative idea.

So let's see. You can't tell the difference between one customer being dissatisfied equate to thousands of people dying.
Yes, having seen your other post, I could see where that would be difficult for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"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.

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

So your complaint is that if a company has one dissatisfied customer they won't go out of business, and therefore the free market theory is wrong?
Really?
That's pretty ******* simplistic. Even for you.
And that isn't a narco-libertarian idea. That's a conservative idea.

So let's see. You can't tell the difference between one customer being dissatisfied equate to thousands of people dying.
Yes, having seen your other post, I could see where that would be difficult for you.

What do thousands of people dying (and a gross exaggeration, btw) have to do with the free market?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

Be happy to.
BP - Gulf Oil Spill
Pacific Gas & Electric Guilty multiple counts endangering public.
Skadden Arps Guilty multiple counts discrimination
General Electric Multpile counts neglect, public endangerment because of defective products.
Exxon Valdez and so on
Ford Pinto
GM Corvair
Chrysler Ugly cars
Pfizer Thousands of deaths /perm injuries
Eli Lilly as above
Kaiser Thousands of denial of benefits resulted in death / perm injury
Blue Cross As above
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those companies has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them

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.