The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[The Rabbi]

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.

I can't take seriously anyone who is going to vote for Capn Crunch. Sorry. Not happening.

 

[JohnLocke1799]

As I get the jest of this he takes exception to the clam by Libertarians NO Government involvement is needed and is asking for a debate on that claim.

That is not the Libertarian position at all! NO government is the position of an anarchist. The position of a Libertarian is minimum government.

My personal opinion is it is a waste of time debating with Libertarians because they are fools on the issue.

I understand there are 32,000 words on federal regulations on the sale of cabbage. I think that is one example of more than minimum government, don't you?

No sane person can actually argue that no Government involvement is needed in the business world. All one need do is go back in history to when that was true for absolute evidence of a need for some regulation.

Agreed. The Libertarian question is what is the minimum government necessary?

 

[JohnLocke1799]

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

This is not true. Regulations can eliminate the industry altogether as Obama hopes is the result of regulations on the coal industry. So, the question becomes a pragmatic one, of the cost/benefit ratio of each human life saved?

As a society, we have become ultra risk adverse. Regulations should have a positive cost/benefit ratio and libertarianism is principles enough to ask what that point is rather than submit to the emotionalism of saving a life no matter the cost. This is because at some point there is unintended costs of regulations that hurt peoples lives.

 

[KevinWestern]

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

First off, I don’t think many Libertarians believe in zero regulations. If they did, they would be considered anarchists. I think that Libertarians believe that laws are OK when they are designed to prevent one individual from infringing on the rights of another individual (correct me - anyone - if I'm wrong on this). You can’t dump toxic waste into a river – for example – because it might destroy & pollute the property of a non-consenting 3rd party.

Secondly, many “small gov’t” people are not against the concept of a regulation, however many are just simply skeptical on how successful the execution will be. Do you realize that most regulations are drafted and designed via the help of lobbying firms who are being paid by the largest corporations out there? Aim #1 of many of those regulations is NOT to improve the lives of the consumer, but rather to rig the game in their favor of the big guys. Why do you think it’s so difficult for small businesses (especially in key industries) to get a foot in the game?


.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, a third of anti malaria drugs are fake, so that's a few million a year.

Evidence?

Your ignorance doesn't mean people didn't die. And your ignorance is almost all inclusive, dupe.

Your ignorance doesn't prove that regulations save lives or that they don't kill people.

 

[PredFan]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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.

He started this thread with a lie. The lie is that he was going to listen.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Evidence?

Franco gets his information from his colon wall, naturally he can't link to it....

 

[The T]

Evidence?

Franco gets his information from his colon wall, naturally he can't link to it....

Is that why he keeps telling people to look at his sigline?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 ******* 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.

Then maybe you should respond to the libertarians who were trying to seriously discuss the topic, rather than labeling us all dumb as gnats.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

First off, I don’t think many Libertarians believe in zero regulations. If they did, they would be considered anarchists. I think that Libertarians believe that laws are OK when they are designed to prevent one individual from infringing on the rights of another individual (correct me - anyone - if I'm wrong on this). You can’t dump toxic waste into a river – for example – because it might destroy & pollute the property of a non-consenting 3rd party.

Secondly, many “small gov’t” people are not against the concept of a regulation, however many are just simply skeptical on how successful the execution will be. Do you realize that most regulations are drafted and designed via the help of lobbying firms who are being paid by the largest corporations out there? Aim #1 of many of those regulations is NOT to improve the lives of the consumer, but rather to rig the game in their favor of the big guys. Why do you think it’s so difficult for small businesses (especially in key industries) to get a foot in the game?


.

Believing in no government regulations does not make one an anarchist.

 

[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

First off, I don’t think many Libertarians believe in zero regulations. If they did, they would be considered anarchists. I think that Libertarians believe that laws are OK when they are designed to prevent one individual from infringing on the rights of another individual (correct me - anyone - if I'm wrong on this). You can’t dump toxic waste into a river – for example – because it might destroy & pollute the property of a non-consenting 3rd party.

Secondly, many “small gov’t” people are not against the concept of a regulation, however many are just simply skeptical on how successful the execution will be. Do you realize that most regulations are drafted and designed via the help of lobbying firms who are being paid by the largest corporations out there? Aim #1 of many of those regulations is NOT to improve the lives of the consumer, but rather to rig the game in their favor of the big guys. Why do you think it’s so difficult for small businesses (especially in key industries) to get a foot in the game?


.

Believing in no government regulations does not make one an anarchist.

this is true... "no government regulations" does not necessarily imply "no government"...

 

[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

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...

Hmm. A reasoned, intelligent and civil reply. So please understand that challenging or disagreeing with a view by no means, is intended as disrepect for the person with that view.
The challenge with the concept you have been kind enough to expound on, is that it has never proven accurate in practice. I am reminded of Communism. In theory it sounds wonderful! In practice, it never turns out that way.
For example, America prior to the 20th century. Slavery. When there wasn't slavery, there was horrible discrimination. There were sweatshops where women and children work all hours for poverty wages - and even then, they were often screwed out of those wages and fired if they refused the sexual advances of managers etc... There was no defense and certainly no retribution. Did those shops just correct themselves? Nope. Nor did they suffer a loss of sales. Nothing.
The coal mining industry? Did the owners just decide to make working conditions safer? No.

The point being, America was not the Libertarian Utopia some of your compatriots claim it was, prior to the 20th century. Well maybe it was for rich, white land owners. The closest things I've seen to Libertarian economies / governments, have been Hong Kong and The Ukraine. To some degree, India. Even Mexico might apply. Very little government interference with business. Almost no regulation or enforcement of environmental issues, wage & hour, discrimination laws, no such thing as an equivalent of OSHA and so on. Guess what happens when companies realize the government isn't going to help anyone they screw? Guess how much power the citizen has against say PEMEX in a country where the market is left to correct itself? Or what they odds that they would be stupid enough to even file a lawsuit?

I mean, I get the part about companies will lose revenues if they don't provide a good service, product etc... but seriously, does anyone think less people are shopping at Wal-Mart just because it has been shown to systematically disriminate against women on a widespread basis?
Nope.
Has Wal-Mart disappeared?
They're more profitable than ever.

Of course, this is far from an unfettered marketplace but I can't think of a time or place this one particular aspect of Libertarianism proved accurate.

 

[Oddball]

The point being, America was not the Libertarian Utopia some of your compatriots claim it was, prior to the 20th century. Well maybe it was for rich, white land owners.

In the text wall of the all too familiar supercilious condescension, we cut to the strawman....No libertarian I know of has ever claimed that America was Utopia or could be made so.

Then, what's any good collectivist authoritarian strawman argument, without the obligatory cheap shot at the hated wealthy for good measure?

Dude, go get a nice high colonic.

 

[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

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...

The point being, America was not the Libertarian Utopia some of your compatriots claim it was, prior to the 20th century. Well maybe it was for rich, white land owners.

In the text wall of the all too familiar supercilious condescension, we cut to the strawman....No libertarian I know of has ever claimed that America was Utopia or could be made so.

Then, what's any good collectivist authoritarian strawman argument, without the obligatory cheap shot at the hated wealthy for good measure?

Dude, go get a nice high colonic.

Hmmm. Let me dumb it down for you because you're obviously easily confused.
The phrase "Libertarian Utopia" means a political / economic climate that was as close to Libertarian ideals as has been seen in this country (and perhaps others). There have been many Libertarians who have made this claim.
As far as a cheap shot at "the wealthy", many would say I fall in that category so why would i take a cheap shot? What cheap shot, btw? You mean that life in the USA was better for wealthy white land-owners, prior to the 20th century? Do you dispute that? Have any facts to support such a claim?
Oh wait. It's you. And I'm tlaking facts and substance.
Sorry, forgot who i was addressing!
Okay, you may now continue throwing tantrums, slinging petty insults and offering no facts, statements or anything of substance. It's all ya got, there junior.

 

[Oddball]

Eat shit, you haughty fuckchop.

You used the words and constructed the strawman, then try to backpedal when called out on your 8th grade debating tactics, cavalier use of semantics and cheap attempts at diverting from the topic that you started.

Your OP is an incurious lie as you are an incurious liar.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Eat shit, you haughty fuckchop.

You used the words and constructed the strawman, then try to backpedal when called out on your 8th grade debating tactics, cavalier use of semantics and cheap attempts at diverting from the topic that you started.

Your OP is an incurious lie as you are an incurious liar.

LOL! Well you ARE an entertaining little fellow!
My lovely bride keeps asking why I'm laughing.
So let's see.
Again, no facts. let alone anything to support them.
Again, not even a statement.
Again, nothing of substance.
Again a little tantrum. Which is cute, btw.
And of course, the petty little insults that are laugh-worthy evidence that you have been spanked by your superior.
Don't be embarrassed, it's not like the expectations were high to begin with.
It's okay junior, I like you!
Besides, there is a really intelligent Libertarian in this thread who is able to have a real discussion. So there is no need to keep toying with you.
Now go have a nice cup of tea and settle down a bit. As funny as your hysterics are, I'm am concerned for your health and don't want you to, you know, burst or something.
I'm just really nice that way.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

flaw

the real question now is , does logic still think there is a flaw; if so what is it. He thought his OP was brilliant when it was instantly and easily slaughtered!

Logic????? no, liberal goof, yes!!!

 

[Contumacious]

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.

A "conservative" idea..............hummmmmmm.............excuse Me FascistoTard, after 85 years of of Welfare/Warfare politics, what the fucketh are you guys :"conserving"?!?!?!?!?

.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Cite examples of all these companies and industries that were so self-correcting prior to regulation

oh please, America had the fastest growth in human history in the 19th Century when there was precious little regulation. China grows from nothing at 10% a year long before they have had time to learn how to regulate.

Capitalism has 1.4 billion capitalist consumer regulators in China who are making folks rich at a faster rate than ever in human history.

 

[g5000]

I can think of a couple examples of markets that are not regulated which are completely fraudulent and yet make money like gangbusters.

The first one that comes to mind is homeopathy. Homeopathic drugs are not regulated by the FDA, and they are completely fraudulent. But stupid people buy them every day. Some even give them to their children and pets in lieu of real medicine or medical attention. Some people take them to cure their cancer in lieu of getting real cancer treatment. And they die. People are suffering and dying as a result of homeopathy, and yet it is thriving.

Homeopathy is a giant ripoff and yet is a big market.

Then you have magnetic soles, ionic bracelets, magic crystals, astrology, palm reading, reiki, aromatherapy, hypnosis, and country music.

None are regulated by the government. Completely bogus, making big money.