Regulations, Litigation, and Personal Responsibility

[doodle]

I had a history professor in college many years ago who said that we have a lot of people in this country with a lot of very different values and perspectives and he was just not sure how you unify those people into a common vision.

Only thing that seems to temporarily unite everyone is a war or terrorist event. Sucks.

I am not a South Park watcher, but I watched the "Pandemic Special" a few days ago. It is so politically incorrect from both sides, it was awesome. It hit every aspect of the craziness of the past months. If you have access somehow, I recommend it highly.

Russian interference isn't helping either. Our divided nation is a net positive for them.

But overall we get the politicians we deserve. Our nation doesn't want to be spoken to as adults. We don't want to hear the truth. We like finding fault and blame in others for our troubles because it's simple and feels good.

Take healthcare. The left needs to be adament about taking personal responsibility for your health. The right needs to recognize that corporations produce and market food that is inherently bad for people because it's profitable, tasty and it sells. Instead of both sides recognizing this is a two headed problem, the left ignores personal responsibility and the right ignores the influence that easy accessibility of unhealthy healthy food (and affordability) and marketing play. In the end, our nation will experience declining life expectancies soon and continued increasing healthcare costs due to preventable diet related diseases. We are so beholden to our political teams and economic philosophies that we are incapable of solving issues. .

[doodle]

I should add....In the face of this we don't have an affordable public healthcare system or public insurance option. Because we don't feel as a society that it's right to let people die on the street we end up treating them in the emergency room. Republicans are adament about not paying for a national healthcare system but they will spend twice as much to treat people in emergency rooms because hospitals cannot deny treatment. Its asinine.

[Mountaineer]

But overall we get the politicians we deserve. Our nation doesn't want to be spoken to as adults. We don't want to hear the truth. We like finding fault and blame in others for our troubles because it's simple and feels good.

I completely agree with you on this. Hence, my signature at the moment.

[doodle]

I had a history professor in college many years ago who said that we have a lot of people in this country with a lot of very different values and perspectives and he was just not sure how you unify those people into a common vision.

Only thing that seems to temporarily unite everyone is a war or terrorist event. Sucks.

I am not a South Park watcher, but I watched the "Pandemic Special" a few days ago. It is so politically incorrect from both sides, it was awesome. It hit every aspect of the craziness of the past months. If you have access somehow, I recommend it highly.

Russian interference isn't helping either. Our divided nation is a net positive for them.

But overall we get the politicians we deserve. Our nation doesn't want to be spoken to as adults. We don't want to hear the truth. We like finding fault and blame in others for our troubles because it's simple and feels good.

Take healthcare. The left needs to be adament about taking personal responsibility for your health. The right needs to recognize that corporations produce and market food that is inherently bad for people because it's profitable, tasty and it sells. Instead of both sides recognizing this is a two headed problem, the left ignores personal responsibility and the right ignores the influence that easy accessibility of unhealthy healthy food (and affordability) and marketing play. In the end, our nation will experience declining life expectancies soon and continued increasing healthcare costs due to preventable diet related diseases. We are so beholden to our political teams and economic philosophies that we are incapable of solving issues. .

How do you eschew personal responsibility while simultaneously regulating business? They seem counter intuitive. Where do you draw the line where businesses are restricted from selling some foods that are deemed unhealthy but X% level of unhealthy is allowed?

And it’s up to individuals to make some decisions on health, you can buy as many 1/4 pounder cheeseburgers as you want, but please eat responsibly. But Big Macs are banned, too unhealthy.

What if the consumer just buys 4 of the allowed 1/4 pounders and eats all 4, making the equivalent of a Big Mac?

What if we ban soda bigger than X ounces, can’t someone just buy multiples of the smaller soda? Or would there be a government registry like Sudafed where you have to show your ID and be recorded in a database to make sure you don’t exceed a certain quantity of soda per month. What if I drink zero soda, and my friend drinks a lot, and I go buy soda for him with my ID, will I be arrested for facilitating diabetes?

Who decides in the government what’s healthy and what isn’t? Is it based on which lobbyists donate the most money to congressmen on the Dietary and Health subcommittee?

What if food that is healthy for one person is unhealthy for most and the food that would benefit this individual is banned because it’s bad for 99.99% of the population . Is that person just fucked in the name of the greater good?

Please clarify how you make your common sense reasonable food sale regulations because the common sense gun regulations I see are hooey.

Before we go into this do you even believe that regulations are necessary under any circumstances? From previous discussions it seems like you are fine with mentally impaired individuals owning chemical and biological weapons. I'm pretty sure you would be fine with me dumping toxic waste into the water in front of my house or burning tires on my property. After all, who has the right to regulate anyones behavior, correct?

[doodle]

Would you be willing to accept that in any situation where the behavior of one individual impacts the life of another regulation could be justifiable?

That being the case how do you propose to solve a health care issue where the health problems brought about by an extremely poor diet and lifestyle is paid for by society at large that then has to treat the medical problems of these individuals? If these people's personal health decisions impact other individuals then we have two choices, either we pay for their treatment but have some method to sway their behavior to better choices (not every regulation has to forbid things, it could simply make it more difficult or costly to procure something) or we just let them die on the street outside the hospital if they can't afford treatment. If a man goes into hospital with heart issues because he is 200 pounds overweight and has type 2 diabetes but doesn't have enough money or credit to pay for treatment should the hospital put him on street to die? If not, then who is going to pay for his treatment that is arising because of poor health choices? If society at large, then don't they have a right to stipulate certain things regarding this individuals choices if they are going to be paying for the treatment arising because of his choices.

[Xan]

There are potential food regulations which wouldn't be the kind of intrusive rules that Tom is against. For example, high fructose corn syrup could be banned from any food product. Wouldn't affect any individual. I suppose there's a possibility that sweet things might cost slightly more. Maybe not, though.

[doodle]

I understand Tom's perspective but I don't agree that we are all better off because corporations are incentivized to maximize profits. If a corporation creates an intentionally addictive food, or medication that happens to also be very detrimental to our health that it heavily markets to hook kids on then I don't see how that makes us all better off?

No one is arguing for banning sugar or banning guns. That's a straw man he likes to use. What people are saying is maybe don't put up ammunition vending machines up in inner city housing projects. Or maybe don't fill vending machines with products that contain 10x as much sugar as scientists say a kid should consume in a week and then put them in school hallways. Maybe, don't incentivize doctors with kickbacks for prescribing drugs to patients.

There is a lot of negative externalities with capitalism that Tom is overlooking. There is a town in Montana that contains a massive toxic pit superfund site (the Berkely Pit) leftover from the anaconda mining company. They went belly up, closed the mine, walked away and the pit filled up with groundwater and is now a massive pool of toxic waste that will kill anything that touches it. Now how does this benefit everyone?

[jalanlong]

I'm all for personal responsibility but you have to recognize that everyone shares in that. You can't dangle prostitutes and drugs and fast food restaurants, and video games and peer pressure in front of a 16 year old kid who comes from a broken home and then be surprised when he falls into bad habits. Society in addition to parents (because not every kid is blessed with them) also has a responsibility to shield people from harm and help encourage good choices. You realize that sometimes what is most profitable for an individual is actually detrimental to society right? We are an over medicated society because pharmaceutical companies incentive doctors to push drugs onto patients. The personal profit motive incentivizes negative outcomes. No one makes billions selling brocolli and an evening walk. Do you think it's realistic for the solution to this problem being patients pushing back against their doctors? Seriously, Tom. I get the idea but it's just not realistic. I wish it would happen. I think we have a serious lack of personal responsibility in this country. Ahemmmm...including our president.

I think it's a two pronged approach of personal responsibility, incentivizing and increasing ease of access to making good choices, and making negative choices more difficult or disincentivized. For example, vending machines at school. Why are they full of soda and candy? Are we really providing kids with an environment here that will encourage them to make good dietary decisions when they are hungry when this is the option we give them? It's setting things up for failure.

So

So who exactly decides what the "negative choices" are? The whole of history does not really give me comfort that politicians will make those "negative choice" decisions in responsible ways. Most likely they will make them in a way that lines their pockets or gets them re-elected.

I had a snack bar at my high school and I regularly drank soda and ate hot dogs and fries for lunch. And I am a pretty healthy 51 year old. So I should have been forced to eat what somebody else thought was right for me because they knew better than me? Or because someone else might not be able to handle what I ate?

Your arguments are the common arguments of tinkerers and planners in society. If we could just move this chess piece here and that chess piece there then people will behave the way we want them to and some sort of uptopia suddenly pops out. It completely sidesteps the issue of unforeseen consequences and that the basic nature of humans. As Taleb says in his last book, the problem with tinkers and planners is that they have no skin in the game. They can make these decisions, foist them upon the general public and then walk away when (surprise!) they do not work out as planned. Has anyone been held responsible for the damage of the original food pyramid? How about for the war in Iraq? Central Planners never even have to say "oops my bad" much less suffer for their miscalculations.

[doodle]

I'm all for personal responsibility but you have to recognize that everyone shares in that. You can't dangle prostitutes and drugs and fast food restaurants, and video games and peer pressure in front of a 16 year old kid who comes from a broken home and then be surprised when he falls into bad habits. Society in addition to parents (because not every kid is blessed with them) also has a responsibility to shield people from harm and help encourage good choices. You realize that sometimes what is most profitable for an individual is actually detrimental to society right? We are an over medicated society because pharmaceutical companies incentive doctors to push drugs onto patients. The personal profit motive incentivizes negative outcomes. No one makes billions selling brocolli and an evening walk. Do you think it's realistic for the solution to this problem being patients pushing back against their doctors? Seriously, Tom. I get the idea but it's just not realistic. I wish it would happen. I think we have a serious lack of personal responsibility in this country. Ahemmmm...including our president.

I think it's a two pronged approach of personal responsibility, incentivizing and increasing ease of access to making good choices, and making negative choices more difficult or disincentivized. For example, vending machines at school. Why are they full of soda and candy? Are we really providing kids with an environment here that will encourage them to make good dietary decisions when they are hungry when this is the option we give them? It's setting things up for failure.

So

So who exactly decides what the "negative choices" are? The whole of history does not really give me comfort that politicians will make those "negative choice" decisions in responsible ways. Most likely they will make them in a way that lines their pockets or gets them re-elected.

I had a snack bar at my high school and I regularly drank soda and ate hot dogs and fries for lunch. And I am a pretty healthy 51 year old. So I should have been forced to eat what somebody else thought was right for me because they knew better than me? Or because someone else might not be able to handle what I ate?

Your arguments are the common arguments of tinkerers and planners in society. If we could just move this chess piece here and that chess piece there then people will behave the way we want them to and some sort of uptopia suddenly pops out. It completely sidesteps the issue of unforeseen consequences and that the basic nature of humans. As Taleb says in his last book, the problem with tinkers and planners is that they have no skin in the game. They can make these decisions, foist them upon the general public and then walk away when (surprise!) they do not work out as planned. Has anyone been held responsible for the damage of the original food pyramid? How about for the war in Iraq? Central Planners never even have to say "oops my bad" much less suffer for their miscalculations.

Ok, so then what is your health care solution? Not to get too far off on a tangent. What do we do as our population edges toward 50% obesity rates and the associated health issues this causes? Sorry, I know in your ideal world they would take personal responsibility or just die in the street but that isn't going to happen. As great as that would feel for all the sick fatties to get their comeuppance (sarcasm)...so how do we as a society tackle the fact that our way of life is detrimental to our health and increasingly overtaxing our medical resources?

[doodle]

Would you be willing to accept that in any situation where the behavior of one individual impacts the life of another regulation could be justifiable?

This is a good question. The way I see it, there are basically two ways to approach situations where one person's actions could potentially affect another person:

1. Regulate - Restrict the person's freedom in such a way that they (hopefully) will be less likely to violate certain rights of the other person.

2. Enforce violations of rights - Do not restrict the person's freedom, but if he violates any rights of the other person, prosecute him in court to seek justice.

#1 (regulate) is sort of a one-size-fits-all approach in which everyone may be forced to change their behavior in a certain way, even if it is completely irrelevant to many of them from a rights-violation perspective. By contrast, #2 (enforce violations of rights) effectively tailors the situation to each individual and doesn't assume that people are fungible.

Ok, I'd be for number 2 if it wasn't so complicated. We know for example that city air pollution from transportation aggravates respiratory ailments especially in young children with developing lungs. Should a parent whose child has severe asthma because they live next to a highway sue every driver in the city? Go after the car manufacturers? Do you think that is really realistic?

Fascinatingly, I find #1 to be far more complex of the two and it's been one of the basis tenants leading to my political framework.

It seems far more difficult to draft legislation to regulate behavior in a way thats effective and can't be skirted, but also doesn't impose negative costs on those who were unintended to be injured by it. In my example above, the 100gram daily sugar regulation and the marathon runner who legimiately needs more.

It seems far easier to determine if someone harmed someone else. Your dog shit on my driveway. You drove your car into my parked car. Your factory dumped pollutants into the lake and here's the parts per million reading of the water sample.


Seems far more difficult, if not impossible to draft regulations that don't screw over responsible people and that can't be loopholed by the rich or corrupt.

All of the regulations have unintended consequences. For example, to promote ecology in California, no new houses can be built without solar panels. Even if the house itself is located in an area that has cloud cover 99% of the year. Because all houses in California must have them. So the cost of the house goes up by $50k for a useless appendage on the roof. Imagine there was an exemption clause, such that if you performed an environmental study showing that the house gets less than X% sunlight per year it's exempt. Well that study will cost $10k to perform and will drive up the cost of the house. And anyone developers to skirt the law can do a bogus study with bribed consultants.

The result is a housing shortage in California and high homelessness. Not just because of this solar panel requirement, but other regulations like it.

All new cars must have backup cameras. Because a dozen toddlers per year are hit by their own parents in their driveways and killed. This raises the cost by $500. There's some potential new car buyers who are on the margin of being able to afford a new car, if it was only $500 cheaper. But they're not allowed to buy one without this feature, even if they have no children, even if they live in a gated elderly community that bans children.

So there's people who can't afford the new car with the mandated safety feature of backup cameras, and they are stuck driving 10 year old cars with less safe air bag systems. Paradoxically, the regulation has made these people less safe because they are forced to drive an older vehicle since they cannot afford the new one due to the mandated backup cameras they don't need but are required to buy.

The FDA is slow at approving new drugs. A while back a legitimate scientific study shows that the FDAs failure to approve a certain drug in a timely fashion resulted in the deaths of 50k Americans. Even if those Americans were willing to take the potential risk of dying from the drug rather than the guaranteed risk of dying from the disease, they weren't allowed to because the government knew better.

Ok, I can get behind that. But what about the below. What about mining companies like Anaconda that build huge strip mines and then walk away after bankruptcy leaving massive toxic lakes like the Berkely Pit for taxpayers to clean up? Why are companies able to offload externalities so easily?

https://psmag.com/news/the-epa-wont-h ... up-costs

In a win for the mining industry, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday upheld an Environmental Protect Agency decision not to instate a proposed rule that would have protected taxpayers from having to foot the bill for costly clean-ups of mining pollution.

The ruling came after environmental groups sued the Trump administration last year for dropping the Obama-era proposal that would have required hard-rock mining companies to provide financial assurance that they could pay for any potential environmental clean-up.

[doodle]

Would you be willing to accept that in any situation where the behavior of one individual impacts the life of another regulation could be justifiable?

This is a good question. The way I see it, there are basically two ways to approach situations where one person's actions could potentially affect another person:

1. Regulate - Restrict the person's freedom in such a way that they (hopefully) will be less likely to violate certain rights of the other person.

2. Enforce violations of rights - Do not restrict the person's freedom, but if he violates any rights of the other person, prosecute him in court to seek justice.

#1 (regulate) is sort of a one-size-fits-all approach in which everyone may be forced to change their behavior in a certain way, even if it is completely irrelevant to many of them from a rights-violation perspective. By contrast, #2 (enforce violations of rights) effectively tailors the situation to each individual and doesn't assume that people are fungible.

Ok, I'd be for number 2 if it wasn't so complicated. We know for example that city air pollution from transportation aggravates respiratory ailments especially in young children with developing lungs. Should a parent whose child has severe asthma because they live next to a highway sue every driver in the city? Go after the car manufacturers? Do you think that is really realistic?

Fascinatingly, I find #1 to be far more complex of the two and it's been one of the basis tenants leading to my political framework.

It seems far more difficult to draft legislation to regulate behavior in a way thats effective and can't be skirted, but also doesn't impose negative costs on those who were unintended to be injured by it. In my example above, the 100gram daily sugar regulation and the marathon runner who legimiately needs more.

It seems far easier to determine if someone harmed someone else. Your dog shit on my driveway. You drove your car into my parked car. Your factory dumped pollutants into the lake and here's the parts per million reading of the water sample.


Seems far more difficult, if not impossible to draft regulations that don't screw over responsible people and that can't be loopholed by the rich or corrupt.

All of the regulations have unintended consequences. For example, to promote ecology in California, no new houses can be built without solar panels. Even if the house itself is located in an area that has cloud cover 99% of the year. Because all houses in California must have them. So the cost of the house goes up by $50k for a useless appendage on the roof. Imagine there was an exemption clause, such that if you performed an environmental study showing that the house gets less than X% sunlight per year it's exempt. Well that study will cost $10k to perform and will drive up the cost of the house. And anyone developers to skirt the law can do a bogus study with bribed consultants.

The result is a housing shortage in California and high homelessness. Not just because of this solar panel requirement, but other regulations like it.

All new cars must have backup cameras. Because a dozen toddlers per year are hit by their own parents in their driveways and killed. This raises the cost by $500. There's some potential new car buyers who are on the margin of being able to afford a new car, if it was only $500 cheaper. But they're not allowed to buy one without this feature, even if they have no children, even if they live in a gated elderly community that bans children.

So there's people who can't afford the new car with the mandated safety feature of backup cameras, and they are stuck driving 10 year old cars with less safe air bag systems. Paradoxically, the regulation has made these people less safe because they are forced to drive an older vehicle since they cannot afford the new one due to the mandated backup cameras they don't need but are required to buy.

The FDA is slow at approving new drugs. A while back a legitimate scientific study shows that the FDAs failure to approve a certain drug in a timely fashion resulted in the deaths of 50k Americans. Even if those Americans were willing to take the potential risk of dying from the drug rather than the guaranteed risk of dying from the disease, they weren't allowed to because the government knew better.

Ok, I can get behind that. But what about the below. What about mining companies like Anaconda that build huge strip mines and then walk away after bankruptcy leaving massive toxic lakes like the Berkely Pit for taxpayers to clean up? Why are companies able to offload externalities so easily?

https://psmag.com/news/the-epa-wont-h ... up-costs

In a win for the mining industry, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday upheld an Environmental Protect Agency decision not to instate a proposed rule that would have protected taxpayers from having to foot the bill for costly clean-ups of mining pollution.

The ruling came after environmental groups sued the Trump administration last year for dropping the Obama-era proposal that would have required hard-rock mining companies to provide financial assurance that they could pay for any potential environmental clean-up.

They get away with this because no one owns the land. The government owns the land the bureacrats don't give a shit if it gets polluted on because it's not their land.

If instead the government owned little to no land, and sold the land to private investors, and cancelled tax debt for a few years due to this windfall of cash, then those private investors would be more incentivzed to keep their lands from being polluted on.

Who cares more if a company dumps poison into the lake in your backyard? A government bureacrat in a union who is at 19 of 20 years of career until a garanteed pension and he virtually is unfirable, or a private landlord who invested his life savings into some rural land to develop on as part of a business strategy?

Who will be better stewards against pollution from nearby corporations?

So if I create a corporation and buy land in the mountains and strip mine it. Then throw all my mine tailings into a giant pile where they seep into the local river polluting it. And after I've pulled out all the value and time comes to clean up I declare bankruptcy and walk away. That wouldn't happen under your scenario, why?

[Tortoise]

Paging @dualstow to branch off this giant “Regulations, Litigation, and Personal Responsibility” side-discussion!

[doodle]

Tom,

In your scenario of suing for damages vs regulation how do courts decide what the value of human health is? For example, say a company dumps waste into local watershed and it poisons 50 kids and causes all sorts of learning disabilities. How does one decide what sort of monetary punishment to assign to that? Is that not complicated as well?

[doodle]

How would the lowly middle class homeowner living downtstream of the multi-billion dollar mining conglomorate possibly be able to sue for damages? I don't know. And I don't have to know. The free market would figure it out.

That's a leap.

I wish so bad there was a way to run simulations of these different worlds. I'd really love to see if Tom's ideas if implemented would function or whether there wouldn't be some unforseen consequence that lead to worse outcomes. Perhaps in Tom's world things would look like a Charles Dickens novel from the early days of the industrial revolution...filthy masses of people and children working 16 hour days. I get the feeling that just like diet the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. American libertarians (which are a different animal from traditional libertarians) remind me somewhat of these crazy diets where people say just eliminate all the carbs and you'll be great! Instead it's, eliminate the government and all regulations and the world will be fantastic. I have my doubts.

[doodle]

How would the lowly middle class homeowner living downtstream of the multi-billion dollar mining conglomorate possibly be able to sue for damages? I don't know. And I don't have to know. The free market would figure it out.

That's a leap.

I wish so bad there was a way to run simulations of these different worlds. I'd really love to see if Tom's ideas if implemented would function or whether there wouldn't be some unforseen consequence that lead to worse outcomes. Perhaps in Tom's world things would look like a Charles Dickens novel from the early days of the industrial revolution...filthy masses of people and children working 16 hour days. I get the feeling that just like diet the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. American libertarians (which are a different animal from traditional libertarians) remind me somewhat of these crazy diets where people say just eliminate all the carbs and you'll be great! Instead it's, eliminate the government and all regulations and the world will be fantastic. I have my doubts.

Why has it been so difficult to sue companies for externalities? I mean, there is clear evidence that vehicle emissions create the smog in downtown LA which affects the development of children's lungs and asthma etc...besides just being nasty to breathe and obscuring a clear view. Why haven't people affected by the horrible air been able to sue?

[jalanlong]

How would the lowly middle class homeowner living downtstream of the multi-billion dollar mining conglomorate possibly be able to sue for damages? I don't know. And I don't have to know. The free market would figure it out.

That's a leap.

I wish so bad there was a way to run simulations of these different worlds. I'd really love to see if Tom's ideas if implemented would function or whether there wouldn't be some unforseen consequence that lead to worse outcomes. Perhaps in Tom's world things would look like a Charles Dickens novel from the early days of the industrial revolution...filthy masses of people and children working 16 hour days. I get the feeling that just like diet the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. American libertarians (which are a different animal from traditional libertarians) remind me somewhat of these crazy diets where people say just eliminate all the carbs and you'll be great! Instead it's, eliminate the government and all regulations and the world will be fantastic. I have my doubts.

The great thing about diets (or really anything in the free world) is that you can switch at will. If you are doing a vegetarian diet and it isn't working for you then you can change course and switch to a carnivore diet and see how that goes. Unfortunately when it comes to government if something doesn't work they do not switch courses, they just double down on it. Just needs more money. Like saying if you are fat on the high carb diet, what you need is just more carbs.

Take schooling. If schools were all privatized, if the school I chose was not working I could just go to another one. And another. And another. Until I found that one that was a fit for my child. If my public school is not working well for my child, what do I do? Complain to my congressman? Run for school board?

[doodle]

How would the lowly middle class homeowner living downtstream of the multi-billion dollar mining conglomorate possibly be able to sue for damages? I don't know. And I don't have to know. The free market would figure it out.

That's a leap.

I wish so bad there was a way to run simulations of these different worlds. I'd really love to see if Tom's ideas if implemented would function or whether there wouldn't be some unforseen consequence that lead to worse outcomes. Perhaps in Tom's world things would look like a Charles Dickens novel from the early days of the industrial revolution...filthy masses of people and children working 16 hour days. I get the feeling that just like diet the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. American libertarians (which are a different animal from traditional libertarians) remind me somewhat of these crazy diets where people say just eliminate all the carbs and you'll be great! Instead it's, eliminate the government and all regulations and the world will be fantastic. I have my doubts.

The great thing about diets (or really anything in the free world) is that you can switch at will. If you are doing a vegetarian diet and it isn't working for you then you can change course and switch to a carnivore diet and see how that goes. Unfortunately when it comes to government if something doesn't work they do not switch courses, they just double down on it. Just needs more money. Like saying if you are fat on the high carb diet, what you need is just more carbs.

Take schooling. If schools were all privatized, if the school I chose was not working I could just go to another one. And another. And another. Until I found that one that was a fit for my child. If my public school is not working well for my child, what do I do? Complain to my congressman? Run for school board?

I agree in many instances the government can be grossly inefficient. That isn't to say in all instances and it certainly doesn't disqualify the need for government or some form of market regulation. I don't buy into the notion that turning everything over to the free market including our police and legal system is going to lead to better outcomes. I know that there are some outliers like Rothbard that have this whole utopian free market system worked out on paper but I think reality would be quite a bit messier. I frankly don't have a philosophical bias other than I don't want a system where there are double standards and companies can get away with offloading externalities into society. I'd say the way in which our government has jumped into bed with corporations is perhaps the worst scenario. Our system is a mess in my estimation. Unfortunately, we can't even solve simple issues in this country let alone tackle anything difficult. I do know that relaxing air and water standards, and reducing regulatory oversight on corporations given our present legal system is going to lead to worse environmental outcomes. That for me is an issue.

[Tortoise]

Our system is a mess in my estimation. Unfortunately, we can't even solve simple issues in this country let alone tackle anything difficult.

On the other hand, most of the U.S. states and the rest of the civilized world were remarkably unified in their decision to shred their constitutions and lock everything down in response to Covid-1984.

Fear unites us!

[Kbg]

I love Libertarian talking points and arguments, they are so cute. And those little cutie pies usually don't even think about how many implicit assumptions they are making. I found out long ago it's really quite pointless to argue with a Libertarian. Practicality doesn't exist in their universe nor does complexity, bad behavior or evil...but if you wave away those things, it's awesome.

And this my friends is why Libertarianism and libertarians as a political party get no where with the vast majority of citizens. Common sense prevails, and that vast majority recognizes all the things that disappear with the waving of a magic Libertarian wand actually do exist in the real world.

Gotta hand it to doodle though...you got more patience than I do.

[jalanlong]

I love Libertarian talking points and arguments, they are so cute. And those little cutie pies usually don't even think about how many implicit assumptions they are making. I found out long ago it's really quite pointless to argue with a Libertarian. Practicality doesn't exist in their universe nor does complexity, bad behavior or evil...but if you wave away those things, it's awesome.

And this my friends is why Libertarianism and libertarians as a political party get no where with the vast majority of citizens. Common sense prevails, and that vast majority recognizes all the things that disappear with the waving of a magic Libertarian wand actually do exist in the real world.

Gotta hand it to doodle though...you got more patience than I do.

Huh..so you are saying the public at large has common sense? That is a strange hook to hang you hat on. Not sure Doodle would agree. I guess they have enough common sense to dismiss Libertarianism (you are assuming they even know what it is) but not enough sense to avoid electing a reality tv star to the White House?

The last 100 years the Federal Government has grown exponentially larger while people's satisfaction with said government, its employees and its services is at all all-time low. But if a Libertarian suggests perhaps the solution is less government, they are the crazy ones!

[doodle]

I love Libertarian talking points and arguments, they are so cute. And those little cutie pies usually don't even think about how many implicit assumptions they are making. I found out long ago it's really quite pointless to argue with a Libertarian. Practicality doesn't exist in their universe nor does complexity, bad behavior or evil...but if you wave away those things, it's awesome.

And this my friends is why Libertarianism and libertarians as a political party get no where with the vast majority of citizens. Common sense prevails, and that vast majority recognizes all the things that disappear with the waving of a magic Libertarian wand actually do exist in the real world.

Gotta hand it to doodle though...you got more patience than I do.

Huh..so you are saying the public at large has common sense? That is a strange hook to hang you hat on. Not sure Doodle would agree. I guess they have enough common sense to dismiss Libertarianism (you are assuming they even know what it is) but not enough sense to avoid electing a reality tv star to the White House?

The last 100 years the Federal Government has grown exponentially larger while people's satisfaction with said government, its employees and its services are at all all-time low. But if a Libertarian suggest perhaps the solution is less government, they are the crazy ones!

I'd say the federal government has grown as a response to an inherently more complex society with far greater numbers of individuals and an accompanying gradual dissolution of common civic institutions and traditions. Our forefathers didn't have to contend with issues like nuclear power plants and intercontinental ballistic missiles, airplanes and national transportation networks not to mention a diverse population over 300 million and the accompanying stresses this creates when you can't just claim a piece of land and go out and start building a life. Thee government usually expanded to address societal problems and many of these expansions have become quite popular. I don't argue that there have been inefficiencies and glaring negligence along the way. And I think there is a place for the libertarian perspective at the table. I think they do their ideas a disservice when they go to the point of advocating for sawing off the entire government from society. Privatizing police and judicial systems. Stripping all regulations and rules from society and imagining that it will just all come together to function perfectly. I have to admit , I haven't smoked whatever is in that pipe.

[jalanlong]

I love Libertarian talking points and arguments, they are so cute. And those little cutie pies usually don't even think about how many implicit assumptions they are making. I found out long ago it's really quite pointless to argue with a Libertarian. Practicality doesn't exist in their universe nor does complexity, bad behavior or evil...but if you wave away those things, it's awesome.

And this my friends is why Libertarianism and libertarians as a political party get no where with the vast majority of citizens. Common sense prevails, and that vast majority recognizes all the things that disappear with the waving of a magic Libertarian wand actually do exist in the real world.

Gotta hand it to doodle though...you got more patience than I do.

Huh..so you are saying the public at large has common sense? That is a strange hook to hang you hat on. Not sure Doodle would agree. I guess they have enough common sense to dismiss Libertarianism (you are assuming they even know what it is) but not enough sense to avoid electing a reality tv star to the White House?

The last 100 years the Federal Government has grown exponentially larger while people's satisfaction with said government, its employees and its services are at all all-time low. But if a Libertarian suggest perhaps the solution is less government, they are the crazy ones!

I'd say the federal government has grown as a response to an inherently more complex society with far greater numbers of individuals and an accompanying gradual dissolution of common civic institutions and traditions. Our forefathers didn't have to contend with issues like nuclear power plants and intercontinental ballistic missiles, airplanes and national transportation networks not to mention a diverse population over 300 million and the accompanying stresses this creates when you can't just claim a piece of land and go out and start building a life. Thee government usually expanded to address societal problems and many of these expansions have become quite popular. I don't argue that there have been inefficiencies and glaring negligence along the way. And I think there is a place for the libertarian perspective at the table. I think they do their ideas a disservice when they go to the point of advocating for sawing off the entire government from society. Privatizing police and judicial systems. Stripping all regulations and rules from society and imagining that it will just all come together to function perfectly. I have to admit , I haven't smoked whatever is in that pipe.

I am not sure the avg Libertarian would want to privatize the judicial system. That is pretty firmly embedded in the constitution as one of the Federal Government's responsibilities.

"many of these expansions have become quite popular"
Of course they are. The American people are loss averse. Once they have something they are very unlikely to give it up. But that popularity doesn't make the expansion a good one or a sustainable one. And doesn't change the unintended consequences that come from it.

We have gone far off of the Coronavirus topic. But I would say that one of the struggles Libertarians face is that most people cannot envision real change and that Libertarian philosophy is an incredible change from stem to stern and one part really doesn't work without the other parts.

But think about this. Right now if I presented to the American people a plan to privatize schools...to make it so that people could choose their own school based on their religion, values or child's individual learning needs and there would be no more public school system, most citizens would reject that idea. Not practical. Would never work. However, what if the situation were flipped and we had been under private schools for 100+ years? Then I came in today and said we are going to make the schools public..one system for everyone...you are assigned a school based on where you live, regardless of its quality, regardless of your child's needs or your values. And every child is taught the exact same curriculum and taught the exact same way. Do you think the public would accept that? Or would they say its not practical, doesn't work in the real world? People just get used to what they know and anything outside of what they know and have always known sounds like someone is smoking something.

[Libertarian666]

So if I create a corporation and buy land in the mountains and strip mine it. Then throw all my mine tailings into a giant pile where they seep into the local river polluting it. And after I've pulled out all the value and time comes to clean up I declare bankruptcy and walk away. That wouldn't happen under your scenario, why?

In a libertarian world, you wouldn't be able to do that because you'd be injuring the people downstream of the river. If you owned the whole river, sure, dump away. If the river feeds into something else, you'd be liable for damages.

How would the lowly middle class homeowner living downtstream of the multi-billion dollar mining conglomorate possibly be able to sue for damages? I don't know. And I don't have to know. The free market would figure it out.

Probably some form of external pollution insurance that the homeowner buys, and mandated by their mortgage lender since they don't want to be left stuck with a pollulted house if the homeowner defaults on the mortgage.

The insurance would be a co-opt of attorneys who specialize in these cases and can take the polluters to court and sue for damages.

Oh but for sure this insurance must be so expensive and would make homeownership unaffordable! Well, for one, it would be voluntary insurance, so if you live in a place unlikely to be polluted in, like a surburban city, then you wouldn't have to buy it. And for two, how much tax dollars go to the EPA and other government entities right now to enforce this?

If we defunded those programs and reduced taxes, then people would be far better off paying for private insurance than paying 10x that in taxes to fund government programs.

I don't think that insurance would be very expensive if there are a lot of people buying it, because then there would be plenty of money to sue the company dumping waste in their drinking water.

But in general insurance is woefully underappreciated as a voluntary way of spreading risk among a population.

[Libertarian666]

But think about this. Right now if I presented to the American people a plan to privatize schools...to make it so that people could choose their own school based on their religion, values or child's individual learning needs and there would be no more public school system, most citizens would reject that idea. Not practical. Would never work. However, what if the situation were flipped and we had been under private schools for 100+ years? Then I came in today and said we are going to make the schools public..one system for everyone...you are assigned a school based on where you live, regardless of its quality, regardless of your child's needs or your values. And every child is taught the exact same curriculum and taught the exact same way. Do you think the public would accept that? Or would they say its not practical, doesn't work in the real world? People just get used to what they know and anything outside of what they know and have always known sounds like someone is smoking something.

Exactly. Most people are very poor at comprehending and thinking through the implications of ideas they aren't familiar with.

[l82start]

split from corona discussion.. i cant seem to change the title that may need to wait for xan..