Harry Browne article

[billydkid]

You may hate it. You may like it. It might even change your perspective about certain things.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/LiberalsAndWar.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

Every government program employs force to overrule life and liberty . . .

• Innocent people die, are maimed, lose their property, or lose their loved ones because some bureaucratic decision satisfies a political purpose but is contrary to the wishes of the individual.

Refer: Compulsory wearing of seat belts.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.

Alexander Hamilton


Harry Browne is seductive. He makes libertarianism sound like a cool poultice on all the hot gripes and dissatisfactions we have with government. Yes government can be frustrating, appalling, unfair, too intrusive sometimes...but we still need it.

Libertarians have a very snappy salespitch and "product identification". What is the product they are selling? *Liberty and The Individual*...and on the face of it, who would not buy that?

But any meaningful political interpretation of individual liberty doesn't include having no restraints, and force or fraud has layered interpretations. Reasonable restraints imposed by governments are not *bondage*...and libertarianism just does not seem to recognize the necessity of balancing the needs of the community with the needs of the individual.

It's an obvious idea that we need to guard against excessive use of force or restraint by government, but is the answer to this danger to wither government away to a faint shadow and instead put all our faith in dodgy definitions of liberty which would remove restraints on wealthy self-interest and leave many of us even more vulnerable?. As Plato said, "excess of liberty, whether it lies in state or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery."

Theres a good counter-argument to Libertarianism here:


http://www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html

 

[Cain]

Every government program employ force to overrule life and liberty . . . [I couldn't get the website to load as of this writing]

How many times do others have to address and refute this canard?

This is mind-boggling. Discussions about Libertarianism are not like this on the Infidels forum (or practically anywhere else). Why are a handful of zealous members here obsessed with proselytizing the virtues of the LP?

 

[EvilYeti]

Libertarians have a very snappy salespitch and "product identification". What is the product they are selling? *Liberty and The Individual*...and on the face of it, who would not buy that?

My problem is, I have no interest in the type of Liberty they are selling.

I'm not interested in drug companies having the liberty to sell cough medicine made with morphine without being required to label it as such.

I'm not interested in food processing facilities having the liberty of operating in unsanitary conditions.

I'm not interested in my children having the liberty to work in coal mines. Or purchase unregulated recreational drugs. Or automatic weapons.

 

[Jessica Blue]

How many times do others have to address and refute this canard?

This is mind-boggling. Discussions about Libertarianism are not like this on the Infidels forum (or practically anywhere else). Why are a handful of zealous members here obsessed with proselytizing the virtues of the LP?

Well, according to my link:

Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.


We're all doomed to discuss Libertarianism endlessly.

 

[pgwenthold]

Harry Browne's statement lost all credence when he said this:

When our government mandates what kind of government every country of the world should have, it's no different from the federal government mandating what kind of education system every American state should have — or what every health insurance policy must cover — or what products a company may offer — or how much corn a farmer can plant.

Our government controlling the activities of its individuals is no different from our government trying to tell another country how it should live? Wow, the "one world government" conspiracy...

No, there is a difference between a national government with a domestic agenda to treat its citizens and impericism.

 

[egatley]

I'm not interested in drug companies having the liberty to sell cough medicine made with morphine without being required to label it as such.

I'm not interested in food processing facilities having the liberty of operating in unsanitary conditions.

I'm not interested in my children having the liberty to work in coal mines. Or purchase unregulated recreational drugs. Or automatic weapons.

Libertarianism is not Anarchy.

Regarding "things you ingest," bear in mind that in a free society companies have an active interest in producing the highest quality goods and establishing brand names associated with safety and efficacy. In other words, they would not be able to simply bribe the ruling establishment to get a seal of approval. Any company that harms someone by an omission such as you speak of will be dealt with in the courts just like today.

Notice that frequent government inspections (USDA) have not stopped contaminations. The FDA has dropped the ball on several drugs with lethal results and is additionally rife with corruption. There are numerous cases where the FDA has asked companies for bribes in order to get thru the bureaucracy. The FDA also causes information to be witheld, such as the fact that regular low dose aspirin reduces the risk of heart attacks. Millions have died of heart disease unaware. People complain about pharmaceutical companies but look at the power grab the FDA made in 1962 - the result is that it costs a billion dollars to bring a drug to market. Ain't gonna get much competition that way.

Private consumer organizations can do a far better job of monitoring products than any government can, and will compete against each other to be the gold standard of approval. Note that government regulations in the area of product quality sometimes have the opposite effect as intended - companies that otherwise would seek out higher standards simply do just enough to meet the minimum government standards.

Rest assured, your children certainly won't have to work in coal mines if they don't want to. As an aside, there are indeed places in the world where children work. If you look into it you will find that these are places where living is at a subsistence level and as soon as a child can lend a hand, they do - they must - because otherwise the family would starve to death. The percentage of children in the world that are actually working in hazardous or exploitive conditions is a very, very small percentage.

Your children are already able to purchase unregulated drugs. Nothing will ever change that. Also understand that in a Libertarian society, children are recognized as requiring guardianship.

As far as automatic weapons, I'm with you. I'm not sure where to draw the line with weapons, but I definitely don't want people walking around with grenades.

 

[EvilYeti]

Libertarianism is not Anarchy.

The kind the LP is pushing is indistinguishable from it.

Regarding "things you ingest," bear in mind that in a free society companies have an active interest in producing the highest quality goods and establishing brand names associated with safety and efficacy. In other words, they would not be able to simply bribe the ruling establishment to get a seal of approval. Any company that harms someone by an omission such as you speak of will be dealt with in the courts just like today.

How the hell do you expect to pay for the courts without an income tax? Or pay for jails to put the criminals in?

Notice that frequent government inspections (USDA) have not stopped contaminations. The FDA has dropped the ball on several drugs with lethal results and is additionally rife with corruption. There are numerous cases where the FDA has asked companies for bribes in order to get thru the bureaucracy. The FDA also causes information to be witheld, such as the fact that regular low dose aspirin reduces the risk of heart attacks. Millions have died of heart disease unaware. People complain about pharmaceutical companies but look at the power grab the FDA made in 1962 - the result is that it costs a billion dollars to bring a drug to market. Ain't gonna get much competition that way.

The solution to a broken system is to fix the system, not abolish it.

Private consumer organizations can do a far better job of monitoring products than any government can, and will compete against each other to be the gold standard of approval. Note that government regulations in the area of product quality sometimes have the opposite effect as intended - companies that otherwise would seek out higher standards simply do just enough to meet the minimum government standards.

Right. Like the Pat & Oscar's pizza chain in San Diego thats currently being sued for selling food contaminated with E Coli. Both my roomate and his gf got food poisoning there and the management lied about other cases to try and dodge their liability.

Rest assured, your children certainly won't have to work in coal mines if they don't want to. As an aside, there are indeed places in the world where children work. If you look into it you will find that these are places where living is at a subsistence level and as soon as a child can lend a hand, they do - they must - because otherwise the family would starve to death. The percentage of children in the world that are actually working in hazardous or exploitive conditions is a very, very small percentage.

I would rather live in a world where the wealthy are taxed to pay for the care of poor children, rather than forcing them into dangerous labor conditions. I guess that makes me a bad person (and a communist).

Your children are already able to purchase unregulated drugs. Nothing will ever change that. Also understand that in a Libertarian society, children are recognized as requiring guardianship.

And anyone selling unregulated drugs to my kids will go to jail. Contrast with a Libertarian society, where the dealer would be rewarded for being an enterprising capitalist.

As far as automatic weapons, I'm with you. I'm not sure where to draw the line with weapons, but I definitely don't want people walking around with grenades.

You ain't a very good Libertarian then, objecting to our god-given right to own as much and as powerful ordinace as we wish.

 

[Suddenly]

Libertarianism is not Anarchy.

Regarding "things you ingest," bear in mind that in a free society companies have an active interest in producing the highest quality goods and establishing brand names associated with safety and efficacy. In other words, they would not be able to simply bribe the ruling establishment to get a seal of approval. Any company that harms someone by an omission such as you speak of will be dealt with in the courts just like today.

Great. More tort cases on 1/3 (or more) contingency fees. Really efficient. Do you have a thing for lawyers?

Private consumer organizations can do a far better job of monitoring products than any government can, and will compete against each other to be the gold standard of approval. Note that government regulations in the area of product quality sometimes have the opposite effect as intended - companies that otherwise would seek out higher standards simply do just enough to meet the minimum government standards.

Or companies will create sockpuppet institutes with tough sounding names and huge budgets to crowd out private organizations in the media owned by the same companies. Not many people are going to sort through the chaff. If people had the time and energy to sort through b*llsh*t this could work. However..

 

[DavidJames]

"Note that government regulations in the area of product quality sometimes have the opposite effect as intended - companies that otherwise would seek out higher standards simply do just enough to meet the minimum government standards. "

Of all the really wacky things Libertarians believe I think this logic is possibly the most disingenuous. You are saying that companies are consciously making the decision to do as little as possible to meet the standards. So your solution is to remove the standards. Now, with the standards, they do the minimum, remove the standards and magically, they will spend more money and/or other resources, to produce higher quality. That lack of logic is staggering.

This type of magical thinking permeates a lot of Libertarian thoughts. Much like the companies that willfully pollute government property, but not their own. We are to trust the slime merchant who chooses to pollutes public land, will somehow change their ways if the land were privately owned (ideally their own). Why, we are told it's because polluting their own land would devalue it and reduce profits. Of course the company could spend the money to not pollute any land, but instead, they choose to pollute someone else's land, namely public land. So the company is putting profit ahead of concern for the public. But somehow, that's lost on our Libertarian friends.

Companies pollute and produce poor quality for one reason only, because it saves them money, allowing more profit for the owners. I am all in favor of capitalism. But it's not a religion with a biblical set of morals which guide behavior towards goodness for fellow man. Corporations exist to provide a sufficient rate of return on the dollars invested by it's owners. There is no moral code which dictates how that rate of return is achieved.

I notice Libertarians don't talk much about the people who run companies or work in the government. They like to say the government does this bad thing and that bad thing and businesses do this and that good thing. They seem to miss the constant shuffling of people between jobs in corporations and government. Look in the cabinets (and their tentacles) of the past few presidents and look on the board of directors of fortune 500 and see all the familiar names. Dick Cheney was with the evil government, using force to suck money away from the private sector, then he was a good guy corporate executive waving the flag of freedom, collecting profits for capitalist disciples, now he's part of the evil tyranny again. Damn, it's all so clear to me.

People, yes it's people who run the companies, and history has shown that people will often do whatever it takes to achieve their objectives, regardless of the laws in place.

"Notice that frequent government inspections (USDA) have not stopped contaminations"

true and the existence of police has not stopped crime, so let's get rid of the police

At some point you need to step back from your religious Libertarian messianic stupor and check into hotel reality.

 

[billydkid]

Yes, you've convinced me....

"Note that government regulations in the area of product quality sometimes have the opposite effect as intended - companies that otherwise would seek out higher standards simply do just enough to meet the minimum government standards. "

Of all the really wacky things Libertarians believe I think this logic is possibly the most disingenuous. You are saying that companies are consciously making the decision to do as little as possible to meet the standards. So your solution is to remove the standards. Now, with the standards, they do the minimum, remove the standards and magically, they will spend more money and/or other resources, to produce higher quality. That lack of logic is staggering.

This type of magical thinking permeates a lot of Libertarian thoughts. Much like the companies that willfully pollute government property, but not their own. We are to trust the slime merchant who chooses to pollutes public land, will somehow change their ways if the land were privately owned (ideally their own). Why, we are told it's because polluting their own land would devalue it and reduce profits. Of course the company could spend the money to not pollute any land, but instead, they choose to pollute someone else's land, namely public land. So the company is putting profit ahead of concern for the public. But somehow, that's lost on our Libertarian friends.

Companies pollute and produce poor quality for one reason only, because it saves them money, allowing more profit for the owners. I am all in favor of capitalism. But it's not a religion with a biblical set of morals which guide behavior towards goodness for fellow man. Corporations exist to provide a sufficient rate of return on the dollars invested by it's owners. There is no moral code which dictates how that rate of return is achieved.

I notice Libertarians don't talk much about the people who run companies or work in the government. They like to say the government does this bad thing and that bad thing and businesses do this and that good thing. They seem to miss the constant shuffling of people between jobs in corporations and government. Look in the cabinets (and their tentacles) of the past few presidents and look on the board of directors of fortune 500 and see all the familiar names. Dick Cheney was with the evil government, using force to suck money away from the private sector, then he was a good guy corporate executive waving the flag of freedom, collecting profits for capitalist disciples, now he's part of the evil tyranny again. Damn, it's all so clear to me.

People, yes it's people who run the companies, and history has shown that people will often do whatever it takes to achieve their objectives, regardless of the laws in place.

"Notice that frequent government inspections (USDA) have not stopped contaminations"

true and the existence of police has not stopped crime, so let's get rid of the police

At some point you need to step back from your religious Libertarian messianic stupor and check into hotel reality.

Okay, you've convinced me. Liberty is a bad thing. You can trust the people to govern themselves, but only up to point. In things that really mattter we need wise overseers to guide us and make us toe the line. Freedom of speech is fine as long as people can't go around saying just any old thing they want. Private property is fine just so long as you are willing to fork it over to the authorities when and if they say so. Yes, people can't be trusted to govern themselves. They can't only be trusted to govern other people. Thanks for clearing my mind of all of these superstitions. Yes, large, intrusive government is good - just so long as it is doing the things you want and approve of and just so long as what it is doing doesn't seem to be directly infringing on your rights to conduct your life, educate your children, support yourself and maintaining your property in the way you choose to.

You either believe in liberty or you don't because as easily as a government is infringing on those rights of others that you don't particularly care about it could begin infringing on those yours that you do.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Yes, you've convinced me....

Okay, you've convinced me. Liberty is a bad thing. You can trust the people to govern themselves, but only up to point. In things that really mattter we need wise overseers to guide us and make us toe the line. Freedom of speech is fine as long as people can't go around saying just any old thing they want. Private property is fine just so long as you are willing to fork it over to the authorities when and if they say so. Yes, people can't be trusted to govern themselves. They can't only be trusted to govern other people. Thanks for clearing my mind of all of these superstitions. Yes, large, intrusive government is good - just so long as it is doing the things you want and approve of and just so long as what it is doing doesn't seem to be directly infringing on your rights to conduct your life, educate your children, support yourself and maintaining your property in the way you choose to.

You either believe in liberty or you don't because as easily as a government is infringing on those rights of others that you don't particularly care about it could begin infringing on those yours that you do.

Sarcasm noted, but I think the real issue is that you can't just divide the real world into simple black/white, yes/no, liberty/government.

Everything must be evauluated on it's merits. Sorry, but it's just not that simple.

 

[shanek]

Of all the really wacky things Libertarians believe I think this logic is possibly the most disingenuous. You are saying that companies are consciously making the decision to do as little as possible to meet the standards. So your solution is to remove the standards. Now, with the standards, they do the minimum, remove the standards and magically, they will spend more money and/or other resources, to produce higher quality. That lack of logic is staggering.

The lack of logic is yours.

Companies want to show people that their products are safe. Without government regulations, companies would seek to achieve the highest possible standards in order to achieve that. With government regulations, the standards are made for them; and so they just seek to achieve those, and the combination of the cost of regulatory compliance and the perceived benefit people get from government regulations removes the incentive for any company to seek out higher standards.

Do I YET AGAIN have to point out UL?

We are to trust the slime merchant who chooses to pollutes public land, will somehow change their ways if the land were privately owned

Because with privately owned land, they have to bear the costs of damage done to the land. Not so with government land. They can pollute and not have to bear any of the costs of damage.

I notice Libertarians don't talk much about the people who run companies or work in the government.

What Libertarians are you talking about? Certainly not Harry Browne.

true and the existence of police has not stopped crime, so let's get rid of the police

yourself. There's a better possible alternative to the USDA that has been shown to be effective in other areas of commerce. Show me such an alternative with the police and then we can talk about getting rid of them. Sheez...

At some point you need to step back from your religious Libertarian messianic stupor and check into hotel reality.

 

[Tony]

I'm not interested in drug companies having the liberty to sell cough medicine made with morphine without being required to label it as such.

I'm not interested in food processing facilities having the liberty of operating in unsanitary conditions.

I'm not interested in my children having the liberty to work in coal mines. Or purchase unregulated recreational drugs. Or automatic weapons.

Some people never learn to take care of themselves, your mommy's tit has been replaced by the government's. That's fine. Just dont force us that CAN take care of ourselves to be subjected to the same paternalism.

 

[Martin]

in a free society companies have an active interest in producing the highest quality goods and establishing brand names associated with safety and efficacy

Companies want to show people that their products are safe

I'm beginning to see why so many people consider Libertarianism to be a good idea in principle, but unworkable and hopelessly naive in practice.

No, companies are not interested in producing the best products. They are interested in producing the impression that they produce the best products. Big difference.

 

[shanek]

I'm beginning to see why so many people consider Libertarianism to be a good idea in principle, but unworkable and hopelessly naive in practice.

No, companies are not interested in producing the best products. They are interested in producing the impression that they produce the best products. Big difference.

Explain UL then.

 

[Thanz]

Companies want to show people that their products are safe. Without government regulations, companies would seek to achieve the highest possible standards in order to achieve that. With government regulations, the standards are made for them; and so they just seek to achieve those, and the combination of the cost of regulatory compliance and the perceived benefit people get from government regulations removes the incentive for any company to seek out higher standards.

What a load of bunk. You don't think that there is incentive for a quality and safety driven company to exceed government standards? Ever hear of Volvo?

All that government standards do is set a floor - not a ceiling - on safety and quality. If a company is inclined to exceed that floor, the gov't regulation will do nothing to stop them. It doesn't require that every car be as safe as a Volvo, but it does ensure a minimum level of safety.

Do I YET AGAIN have to point out UL?

Could we stop you if we tried? How is UL that different?

You see, companies want to show people that their products are safe. Without UL, companies would seek to achieve the highest possible standards in order to achieve that. With UL, the standards are made for them; and so they just seek to achieve those, and the combination of the cost of testing buy UL and the perceived benefit people get from UL certification removes the incentive for any company to seek out higher standards.

 

[shanek]

What a load of bunk. You don't think that there is incentive for a quality and safety driven company to exceed government standards?

Of course they do, and as you well know I have pointed this out many times. You also know that I have repeatedly pointed out the enormous costs of regulatory compliance on several occasions.

A company is only going to spend X amount of dollars on safety; beyond that, it just isn't worth it. So when they have to sit there and go through a lot of red tape to prove to the government that they're doing stuff they were going to be doing anyway, that takes Y amount of dollars. Effectively, the amount spend on safety is now X-Y dollars.

Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the fear of litigation is a big factor in determining how much to spend on safety. Being in compliance with regulations gives them a big defense in court, and since their risk is now less, that would drive down the price of X.

How is UL that different?

How is UL not an example of companies making safe products regardless of government interference?

You see, companies want to show people that their products are safe.

Funny; I thought I had made that point.

With UL, the standards are made for them;

No, they aren't. UL is not compulsory. It is a tool they can use to determine whether or not their product is safe and prove it to the consumers.

 

[Thanz]

Of course they do, and as you well know I have pointed this out many times. You also know that I have repeatedly pointed out the enormous costs of regulatory compliance on several occasions.

Yes, you repeat the assertion all the time. You have also produced a link that estimates global costs of regulations. You haven't (unless I have missed it) produced anything on any specific regulation or its cost. For example, when we were debating safety lids for pill bottles, I said that it should be as simple as using an approved bottle. You disagreed, but only backed it up with the assertion that gov't red tape and regulations are expensive. If individual regs are that expensive to companies, why can't you show me how?

A company is only going to spend X amount of dollars on safety; beyond that, it just isn't worth it. So when they have to sit there and go through a lot of red tape to prove to the government that they're doing stuff they were going to be doing anyway, that takes Y amount of dollars. Effectively, the amount spend on safety is now X-Y dollars.

I disagree that this type of thinking takes place as explicitly as you set out here. A company will perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine what level of safety measures they will incorporate into the product. The cost of regulatory compliance will be part of this analysis as an overall cost of the product, but I don't see why it has to be a dollar for dollar reductions from the safety budget. Whether or not the company exceeds the gov't standard the regulatory costs are still there. In effect, they are a fixed cost.

So, while regulatory costs may increase the overall cost of the product, it is not correct to say that those costs come exclusively at the expense of the safety budget.

Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the fear of litigation is a big factor in determining how much to spend on safety. Being in compliance with regulations gives them a big defense in court, and since their risk is now less, that would drive down the price of X.

The reason that it is a defense is that the regulations are seen as a reasonable safety level. They do not provide an airtight defense, however. It is possible for a court to decide that simple compliance was not enough in a particular circumstance.

Without the regulations, I don't see why libertarians don't accept that there will be firms that purposefully skimp on safety in the name of short term profits. We have seen it even with regulations. Why would it not happen more if we got rid of them?

How is UL not an example of companies making safe products regardless of government interference?

It is an example of companies relying on someone else - UL - to tell the public that the product is safe. The same accusation that you level at regs - companies just meet the regs - can be levelled at UL. But of course, it is the holy UL, a private body and therefore cannot be attacked by libertarians.

Funny; I thought I had made that point.

Duh. If you notice, I cut and pasted your paragraph on regs and substituted UL. The same points apply.

No, they aren't. UL is not compulsory. It is a tool they can use to determine whether or not their product is safe and prove it to the consumers.

The standards, however, are set by UL. Companies can just rely on meeting UL standards and not go any further. How is this any different than regs?