| Author | Message | ||
     The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 465 Registered: 3-2004 |
Libertarian: I'd like to live a world made entirely of chocolate. I think that, ultimately, would be to the betterment of us all. I wonder if there is a reason it couldn't happen... new ideas obviously scare you and make your head hurt. that is the only reason i can think of that made you include this nonsense in what is otherwise and interesting and intelligent discussion | ||
| Rick B Citizen Username: Ruck1977 Post Number: 499 Registered: 8-2003 |
I recently heard a story about American made baby food that killed some babies in a foreign country because the formula was untested and unregulated. The free market response to that is that when enough babies die, people will stop buying that brand. That might be true, but it's not acceptable in my view. The fact that there is regulation in some sense gives consumers the trust that the baby food is OK for their baby to eat. What happens when you remove that assumption? How would a free market system handle that? Had there never been regulation on baby foods (or any food for that matter), where would consumer confidence come from? IMHO...if it didn't exist and wasn't forced on us by 'regulating bodies' it would come from a free market system in some form, no? | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1378 Registered: 9-2001  |
How will they learn? Let's say it is a restaurant in, oh, Times Square, where the majority of patrons are tourists? And who wants even one person to get sick, let alone the dozens it would take for even a local restaurant in Maplewood to get a bad rep? Look, I am actually sympathetic to classical libertarian philosophy (not the same as the Libertarian Party, btw), but your broad brush, while entertaining, is not doing good service to your cause. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 936 Registered: 7-2004 |
First of all, how is a world made entirely of chocolate NOT a new idea? Second of all, my faceteous remark served to illustrate that while your utopian idea for the country might work in theory, you're simplifying to point of absurdity. I also find a majority of your ideas mean-spirited at best. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1673 Registered: 1-2003  |
You come on Mark. If the food is good, you know it. and if the food is good, do you really care how the kitchen is? I've eaten at plenty or restaurants with nasty food, dirty dishes, and sloppy service that have the "Satisfactory" certificate on the wall. They close down sooner or later. Its in the restauranteurs interests to keep a clean house. Will there be some owners that only care about the short run, yes, but so what. The short run means they will be closed soon. And not only that but the owners that are only concerned with shortcuts will just pay off the inspector anyway. Do we all have to do personal inspections of every restaurant we eat at? Basically, yes. but not in the kitchen. You know when something isn't right, I've walked out of places that just looked gross, bt once again, there was that "satisfactory" certificate. Useless. I can just about guarantee you that every resaurant tat has had a dirt/health problem has been judged "satisfactory". It is far more dangerous for a restaurant to lose base cusomers than to face a fine. And disease control is different from sanitary inspections. Restaurant inspections are absolutely useless. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1674 Registered: 1-2003 |
Let's say it is a restaurant in, oh, Times Square, where the majority of patrons are tourists? And who wants even one person to get sick, let alone the dozens it would take for even a local restaurant in Maplewood to get a bad rep? Do you think that DOESN'T happen? Inspectors are only called after a complaint is lodged. I'm all for enforcement of rules (as are libertarians) but the idea that inspectors somehow make restaurants safe is ludicrous. A resauranteur will just clean up enough to get the certificate, then go back to his dirty ways. Eventually the market is what takes care of this bad guy. And the babyfood story is somewhat of a myth. I believe it was Israel that had babyfood that didn't meet the nutritional requirements of babies with some sort of deficiency. it affected less than .01% of babies or something like that. It had nothing to do with Regs. and more to do with people feeding sick babies the wrong food. I don't remember the whole story though. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2122 Registered: 5-2001  |
Perfect, huh? Will the free market, all by itself, ensure that the food I buy isn't laden with toxins? If I got sick, there might be no clear indication of the cause. How will the free market help me then? If the company I buy a product from abuses its employees to keep its prices down... how does the "perfect" free market help - or should I, as a consumer, not be concerned? Will the free market prevent consumers upwind from a pig farm from buying ham, while the folks downwind can hardly breathe? Do you want the free market to figure out what medicines are free of major side effects? Will the free market tell you if your child could die because a medicine wasn't properly tested? | ||
| Rick B Citizen Username: Ruck1977 Post Number: 502 Registered: 8-2003 |
myth or not...i think this problem takes care of itself. Its tough to think that there has to be a guinea pig out there to try it first (and get sick or die), but its not really the case. That is assuming the removal of some governing body. In reality, that would not be the case, at worst it would be self-governed. People wouldn't be so quick to just eat any old baby food, they would have to make responsible and educated choices about what was good and what wasn't. My point is, like there is regulation today by a governing body, if you replace that with a private organization, or even use a generic term like "free market society", these problems have a way of sorting themselves out. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1676 Registered: 1-2003 |
Noehead... Yes, it does. Government didn't ban Alar, the market got it removed from public outcry. (that was a mistake by the way) If the company "abuses " employees, they will work elsewhere or not at all, forcing the company to improve its practices or not have enough employees to survive. As for the pig farm, no, not at all, and it shouldn't prevent anyone from buying ham. Yes I do want the market to figure out what medicines are used for what. As it is now, the FDA is a terrible burocracy that keeps medicines from those who can benefit from them because a tiny fraction of people might react badly. The market tells more people about drugs, benefits and side affects than the government ever did or will. Go to Autism chat sites or cancer sites. You'll find the market figuring out what medicines do what far better than the government does. Have you heard about the corrlation between MMR and autism? The government says it desn't exist... the market is saying otherwise. I'd love to get rid of the FDA, but that won't ever happen. | ||
| ashear Supporter Username: Ashear Post Number: 1706 Registered: 5-2001 |
Its not like we have not tired this. There was a time when there were no worker safety regulations, the result was events like the triangle shirt waist fire. There was a time when there were no environmental regulations. Rivers caught fire, love canal, etc. The market does not address problems like this very well. If you pour pollution out of your factory and it blows over others, what incentive does the market provide to clean up the mess? If you can hire another worker who needs the money to feed her family, you can burn up a few. The market may be efficient, that is to say that the most effcient way to produce goods if labor is cheap may be to sacrifice a few workers. But it is brutally efficient. The quesiton is whether you want to live in a brutally efficient society. I vote no. There are also public goods that may not be economically efficient in a market sense but are still worthwhile. If a private entity ran NJ Transit they would get no profit from the fact that they are reducing pollution by getting people off the roads. But that is a public good that the majority seem to be willing to pay for (and remember all of NJ Transit was once in private hands. The state took over when the private companies failed). | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1379 Registered: 9-2001 |
Note to self--re-read Great Expectations and Oliver Twist. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1380 Registered: 9-2001 |
Further Note: Re-visit Tragedy of the Commons. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5754 Registered: 1-2003  |
ashear, that's an interesting point. The market is the most efficient at many things. But efficiency is measured in average case. So the greatest number of people would, say, get the greatest number of clean meals at the lowest price. Regulation doesn't attempt to achieve that. Rather, it attempts to eliminate the bottom. Sure, that is less efficient. We pay more. And it puts restaurant meals out of reach for some. But it prevents certain tragedies that the market cannot prevent. And overall, in the macroscopic scale, those tragedies don't matter. In other words, someone else can die of poisoning so that I can have a good cheap meal. Maybe we have to ask if those tragedies matter. | ||
| Rick B Citizen Username: Ruck1977 Post Number: 503 Registered: 8-2003 |
Wouldn't brutal efficiency in a society cause brutal efficiency in the lives of those living in that society? {btw...i don't assume the answer, nor do i know the answer, just thought it'd be worth "discussing"} Regulation attempts to eliminate the bottom, but why is there a bottom? What is the bottom, and who is in it? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1680 Registered: 1-2003 |
In many African countries, the elephants belong to everyone. Governments have outlawed killing them, but the vast plains are too big to police. So greedy poachers kill elephants and steal their tusks. In Zambia, Uganda and Kenya, where elephant hunting is banned, the number of elephants has actually dropped dramatically — from 180,000 to 44,000 — in the past four decades. But in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana, local villagers have a form of ownership rights. They have the right to sell hunting licenses for about $10,000 per elephant. And this permission to kill elephants is actually saving elephants. It works, because the villagers now say, these are our elephants. Even a former poacher now works to protect the elephants. The villagers have a profit motive to make sure that elephants don't get poached and killed. As a result, they take care of them. They don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs In these countries where villagers virtually own the elephants, elephant numbers have almost tripled — from 80,000 in 1960 to about 230,000 in 2000. -------------------------------- I got that from a libertarian source... once again, the market prevents tragedies. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5756 Registered: 1-2003 |
That shows how the free market does an amazingly good job very often. I believe the undertext in your African story is that there has been good communication. Had there not been, these deals would have been impossible. | ||
| Cathy Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 757 Registered: 6-2002 |
This isn't a theoretical debate, it's played out on a large scale in our everyday purchasing decisions. For example, go through your wardrobe and see where all of your clothes were made. Unless you have a closet full of Italian suits, chances are your stuff was made in countries where the workers aren't treated so well and industry is largely unregulated. At least if you are a bargain shopper, as I admit to being myself. But you got a nice t-shirt at a cheap price. The market is inherently selfish - that's what it's good at. Probably half of my stuff was made in conditions closely resembling slave labor. I'm not proud of that. The market should induce me, a person who theoretically cares about poverty, environmental issues, etc. to buy only fairly traded organic goods. But it doesn't. Sometimes (in fairness to myself) I don't know where stuff comes from, and it would be too hard to find out. And sometimes, in all honesty, I just want a better lifestyle at a cheaper price. Don't we all? That's human nature. Sure, there are niche markets that appeal to people who care about these things in a very big way, but most people just don't care enough. I think you can manipulate the free market in ways to encourage more charitable behavior (like the elephant example) but the point is you are working through human selfishness, not their better natures. I think you can't get around the fact that markets are selfish. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1682 Registered: 1-2003 |
Greed is good. The farmer doesn't plant his crops out of the goodness of his heart, he does it so he can buy that new plasma screen TV for his den. He is selfish, and it benefits you with the food he grows. If he couldn't sell it, and couldn't profit on his labor, he wouldn't grow it and you wouldn't have it. I think the market shuld be MORE selfish, not less. You aren't manipulating the market to be charitable... The elephant example LICENSES killing elephants. Yet elephant populations are thriving. They are thriving BECAUSE the people are being selfish, they want the license money, and they want it ear after year, so they don't sell too many licenses. In effect they own the elephants. Tom, What communication and what deals? The locals own the right to sell licenses. Poachers affect their livelihood, not just the wild elehants, so they have incentive to protect the elephants from poachers. That is the market, pure and simple. | ||
| Cathy Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 758 Registered: 6-2002 |
Michael wrote: Greed is good. The farmer doesn't plant his crops out of the goodness of his heart, he does it so he can buy that new plasma screen TV for his den. He is selfish, and it benefits you with the food he grows. If he couldn't sell it, and couldn't profit on his labor, he wouldn't grow it and you wouldn't have it. I think the market shuld be MORE selfish, not less. I disagree that greed is always good. The same impulse that leads the farmer to plant crops that will sell (benefiting me) leads a factory owner to ignore safety concerns in order to bring me a cheaper product. It benefits me, but it sure doesn't benefit the worker who gets his hand cut off in a cutting machine. Or the young seamstresses who were burned to death or jumped to their deaths in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire so long ago. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 466 Registered: 3-2004 |
But it doesn't. Sometimes (in fairness to myself) I don't know where stuff comes from, and it would be too hard to find out. And sometimes, in all honesty, I just want a better lifestyle at a cheaper price. Don't we all? That's human nature. Sure, there are niche markets that appeal to people who care about these things in a very big way, but most people just don't care enough. I think you can manipulate the free market in ways to encourage more charitable behavior (like the elephant example) but the point is you are working through human selfishness, not their better natures. I think you can't get around the fact that markets are selfish. see? this is an example of the market working perfectly. the market hasnt done anything wrong, it is you. you are willing to subject people to awful conditions in order to get cheap goods. if you stopped buying their product and made it known that you are doing so because of the way they treat their workers, they would change their ways in order to continue to make sales. you however create a demand for slave labor made goods and they are happy to supply. Will the free market, all by itself, ensure that the food I buy isn't laden with toxins? If I got sick, there might be no clear indication of the cause. How will the free market help me then? If the company I buy a product from abuses its employees to keep its prices down... how does the "perfect" free market help - or should I, as a consumer, not be concerned? Will the free market prevent consumers upwind from a pig farm from buying ham, while the folks downwind can hardly breathe? Do you want the free market to figure out what medicines are free of major side effects? Will the free market tell you if your child could die because a medicine wasn't properly tested? again the only conclusion to be reached from your point is that the populace is an uneducated mass unable to make intelligent and informed decisions and therefore must be saved from itself by government. i propose that people will be forced to become better informed in the face of a lack of expensive and innefficient government hand holding. this can only be a better result. finally, those of who say i am speaking in generalizations, i am. i didnt think it conducive to the almost philosophical nature of the discussion to start throwing nuts and bolts minutae into the mix. for a more detail oriented perspective of libertarian policy please feel free to visit the links i supplied earlier} |
