Libertarianism - the perpetual motion machine of U.S. politics thread

[sologdin]

You hear leftists complain about the drug war, but they are perfectly ok with the FDA performing the same prohibitory function.

not really a useful contrast, to be honest. typical objection to war on drugs is that people are serving substantially their lives in prison for contraband offenses, which offenses increase the risks, the costs, and the prices of the commodities in question, in addition to all of the concomitant violence, as well as the criminalization of a medical condition, which limits the treatment renderable.

[Kalbear]

Neither does the state

Citation needed. You can quibble about the effectiveness or the implementation, but the actual goals of the government are fairly straightforward in terms of benefiting society and are stated quite clearly in many legally binding documents that you might have heard of. That cannot be said for any corporation. Point of fact, these rules and regulations are one of the reasons that government can often be inefficient compared to private companies - because governments must, legally, comply with rules associated with betterment of society.

[Aemon Stark]

Neither does the state

That's why we have constitutions, independent judiciaries, separation of powers, etc. But I forget that libertarians see no distinction between North Korea and the U.S.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Citation needed. You can quibble about the effectiveness or the implementation, but the actual goals of the government are fairly straightforward in terms of benefiting society and are stated quite clearly in many legally binding documents that you might have heard of. That cannot be said for any corporation. Point of fact, these rules and regulations are one of the reasons that government can often be inefficient compared to private companies - because governments must, legally, comply with rules associated with betterment of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

[Kalbear]

That's not actually disproving my point, BearShin. It's the 'quibbling with the effectiveness'.

[TerraPrime]

And I don't think any non-Libertarian will stand to argue that the governments are doing 100% of all the stated goals with 100% effectiveness. We will readily concede that in many cases, the outcome actually is the opposite of the intended result. For instance, legalized racial discrimination is antithecal to a society where all members are treated equally and fairly, and some of the regulations on K12 education (like No Child Left Behind) actually hinder effective teaching/learning, etc. But, the ostensible purpose of governments is, almost by definition, the common good, or that which maintains cohesion of a group of people so that they can function together.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aemon,

That's why we have constitutions, independent judiciaries, separation of powers, etc. But I forget that libertarians see no distinction between North Korea and the U.S.

Huge overstatement. The problem with any political ism except, perhaps, pragmatism is that they start with "assume the perfect X". What we are really arguing about is where to draw lines and what each of us really believes is important. For me personal choice is important. It doesn't override everything but it matters for a lot. Personal choice is why I flipped from anti-abortion rights to pro-abortion rights.

[Aemon Stark]

You're exactly right. But most libertarians don't allow that their "principles" represent a certain point of view - a clear normative judgement - rather than the only interpretation about what kind of "coercion" is permissible. In general, if you allow that society must be based on law, and there must be representative, democratic means of establishing and changing that law, then you cannot artificially limit other people's conception of rights and common good based on your own very narrow reading of the former and denial of the latter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aemon,

Yup. The real argument is about where, when, and what form of coersion is proper. I think too much control imposed by the State is a bad thing. Learning the hard way is very effective instruction. Conversely, if somone is harmed so badly or killed the lesson will not much matter.

Where do we draw the line, the eternal question.

[Spring Bass]

I'm sympathetic to libertarian arguments that the FDA is engaging in over-reach, especially since there are some useful drugs that haven't been brought over here because the FDA is taking goddamn forever to even get them in trials (like a drug in Latin America that seriously helps reduce the need for amputation with diabetes patients). And while we do have regulations for consumer safety, actual regulatory enforcement is patchy at best - we get safer food/goods/etc mostly because the regulations allow for lawsuits and reputation risk that serve as the main way to keep companies in line on consumer safety.

All that said, if you get rid of any "pre-clearance for safety" requirement on drugs, you're going to get more "Thalidomide Baby" situations. The costs of doing discovery and investigation into whether a particular drug was responsible for a lot of negative side-effects isn't cheap, and the longer the period of time between when the patients took the drugs and when the problems showed up the harder it will be to make a case against a company for it that will actually hurt them. It doesn't help, too, that we've drastically expanded arbitration agreements possible under the law in recent years - in Libertarian Land, the company (and participating hospital/doctor) might very well require you to waive any rights to a trial in favor of private arbitration and non-disclosed settlements in exchange for getting the treatment. Don't like it? Find another doctor/drug/etc . . . if you can.

[TerraPrime]

in Libertarian Land, the company (and participating hospital/doctor) might very well require you to waive any rights to a trial in favor of private arbitration and non-disclosed settlements in exchange for getting the treatment. Don't like it? Find another doctor/drug/etc . . . if you can.

Surely, you cannot be serious in proposing that the free market forces, especially once liberated from the yokes of over-reaching federal regulation, will fail to supply adequate alternatives to our consumers? ;)

[Spring Bass]

Hell, considering that a version of it is happening right now, I shudder to think of what it would be like in Libertarian Land.

EDIT: Like I said, don't take this as a defense of the FDA. They've been awful at dealing with fraud and disclosure regarding drugs in the trials that do happen - when it's big, established companies doing drug research, we tend to get Ye Olde Regulatory Capture from them (the thing that libertarians are always warning about). It almost makes me sympathetic to the idea that we should just require trials to determine toxicity (Phase I trials) and then let doctors and patients sort it out once the toxic drugs are discounted.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SJB,

On the large scale I don't believe any State would work well inside a "libertatian" framework. It assumes a fair degree of social cohesion and self-regulation that would result therefrom. However, smaller communities where people know each other well may not need the degree of State regulation that many from large States see as necessary intrinisicly.

The problem for people on my side of the spectrum is that the small States were the ideals liberatian philosophy may be attempted are far in the past. The best we can reasonibly hope for is to push the level of regulation down below levels that entrench a bureacratic class that can make itself into an aristocracy.

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/05/384119672/how-corruption-affects-the-time-it-takes-to-do-business

Consider that the corruption discussed and complained about in this article cannot exist without heavy regulation of people who may and may not start new businesses in Peru. It is very easy for regulation to be converted into something more sinister.

[TerraPrime]

SJB,

On the large scale I don't believe any State would work well inside a "libertatian" framework. It assumes a fair degree of social cohesion and self-regulation that would result therefrom. However, smaller communities where people know each other well may not need the degree of State regulation that many from large States see as necessary intrinisicly.

Yes. For smaller communities I don't see why Libertarianism cannot work, provided that the community is homogenous. Say, up to a few hundred people at a time. But in anything like today's cities and states, the Libertarian organizational preference will, imo, lead to disasters.

[TrackerNeil]

And I don't think any non-Libertarian will stand to argue that the governments are doing 100% of all the stated goals with 100% effectiveness. We will readily concede that in many cases, the outcome actually is the opposite of the intended result. For instance, legalized racial discrimination is antithecal to a society where all members are treated equally and fairly, and some of the regulations on K12 education (like No Child Left Behind) actually hinder effective teaching/learning, etc. But, the ostensible purpose of governments is, almost by definition, the common good, or that which maintains cohesion of a group of people so that they can function together.

Agreed. Also, I think libertarians grossly overestimate the extent to which Americans value personal freedom. Sure, most people will state support for liberty in the abstract, but when you get down to where the rubber meets the road you'll find that support evaporates on specific issues. Americans happily submit to nude scanning or pat-downs at airports, and (with a few damned stupid exceptions) they're OK with being told they have to vaccinate their kids, and insure their cars, and the myriad other restrictions placed upon them. They may squawk a bit at some new mandate (like, say, car seats for children), but in the end they take it in stride.

I don't think most Americans care much about philosophy; their view on issues maps to how those issues intersect their lives.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

That's true of any abstract philosophical concept. That doesn't make those concepts unimportant. It simply means that they must be tempered by practical considerations, that pragmatism matters.

[The Fallen]

as someone who works in manufacturing, the claim that there is no voluntary, customer-driven quality control is amusing

The reason it happens has to do with the history of sanctions and penalties, which came about because of regulations. Can you give us an example of this happening even in early 20th century?

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

That's true of any abstract philosophical concept. That doesn't make those concepts unimportant. It simply means that they must be tempered by practical considerations, that pragmatism matters.

Well, what I would say is--and this applies not just to libertarianism but to any ideology--the concept is the map, but reality is the territory. So when I hear libertarians insisting that some completely unworkable system of self-regulation is best, I imagine a traveler standing knee-deep in water, exclaiming, "But the map says there is no river here!" I find that libertarians are too often fascinated with the map at the expense of the territory.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

That's not true of devoted Marxists? Of anyone devoted to an "ism" over practical problems?

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

That's not true of devoted Marxists? Of anyone devoted to an "ism" over practical problems?

Sure it is. However, (anecdote warning!) in my personal experience, libertarian philosophy is so internally consistent that it seems to inspire a zeal like few other ideologies. Consider the popularity of Ayn Rand's books, or the fact that a high-ranking Republican congressman who ran for vice-president makes his staffers read them.