5 ms·

I really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Not to my knowledge

I really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Not to my knowledge :) But that has more to do with a combination of factionalism, incorrect philosophy (e.g. religious 'Libertarians' who'd like to ban gay marriage), and utopianism. Would there be regulations on cigarettes Other than prohibitions on fraud ("cigarettes are healthy!") or selling to minors, no. selling alcohol to 10 year olds Yes. lead paint Depends. Perhaps there would be cases where lead paint would be okay; I don't know that much about it. Who would prove the harm if there is no EPA? Who has the money to go against big corporations and their paid experts? Lawyers working on behalf of those bringing class-action suits against the manufacturers. And why do you presume there would be no EPA (or an equivalent)? (Some) environmental laws are valid. I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government the power to create something like the EPA. But the States surely do have that power. It took forever to get a shared understanding that smoking is really harmful. Not at all. It took forever for the justice system to overcome the massive lobbying and corruption that was protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits over their fraudulent advertising.

jakeogh 11y ago
"prohibitions on fraud"? You mean have a group of people who decide what is true? Isn't that better known as Not-Libertarianism?
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  That's the question I always ask and never get an answer.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    Maybe you're asking anarchists ;)
    - jakeogh 11y ago
      (much) stronger reverence for the 1st Amendment != Anarchy.
      - duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Could you please elaborate on that? I think you may be conflating prohibitions on speech based on their perceived truthfulness, vs. the need to decide on objective truth in a courtroom. E.g. I should be perfectly free to say "the world is flat" or "my religion is the only truth". But if I'm ever in court on a related matter, I'd better be able to prove it.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  You mean have a group of people who decide what is true? Yes. That's the way society works; in a civilised country, that decision is made through the courts, based on laws created by a democratic Government[1]. Isn't that better known as Not-Libertarianism? No, it's better known as Not-Anarchism. Please stop conflating anarchism with Libertarianism. [1] Not necessarily an elected one. There's more than one way to achieve democracy; selecting the Government by random ballot from the citizenry, a.k.a. sortition, is one alternative to voting. It also happens to be my preferred one.
maxxxxx 11y ago
"Lawyers working on behalf of those bringing class-action suits against the manufacturers." Who can afford that? You will always be outmatched be by big corporations. "Not at all. It took forever for the justice system to overcome the massive lobbying and corruption that was protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits over their fraudulent advertising. " In what way would the situation improve if there was no regulation? There would be even more corruption. Just look at the ratings agencies during the 2008 crisis. They were supposed to be a market based information source but in reality they were paid off. There is a lot that's wrong with agencies like the EPA but abolishing them and dreaming up market based solutions that are corruption free doesn't seem to be realistic to me.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Who can afford that? You will always be outmatched be by big corporations. That's clearly untrue; class-action lawsuits are regularly successful against big corporations without Government intervention (other than the provision of the justice system itself). Just look at the ratings agencies during the 2008 crisis. They were supposed to be a market based information source but in reality they were paid off. Sure. And many people who relied on them got burned. The moral hazard arose when the Government decided to bail out people and organisations who'd depended upon them, with money extracted from taxpayers by threat of force. I'd also point out that a lot of the corruption you mention is Governmental; many of those subprime loans only existed because of market intervention in the first place. There is a lot that's wrong with agencies like the EPA but abolishing them and dreaming up market based solutions that are corruption free doesn't seem to be realistic to me. Me neither. As I've said before, I think it's entirely reasonable for a Libertarian Government to regulate polluting activities. The caveat is that such legislation must be rights-protecting, rational, and uniformly enforced. Also, in the case of the USA, there's no Constitutional mandate for a Federal EPA so it ought to be dissolved and its responsibilities taken up by the States.
DanBC 11y ago
> Not at all. It took forever for the justice system to overcome the massive lobbying and corruption that was protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits over their fraudulent advertising. Isn't that the point? Tobacco companies had vast sums of money to spend buying scientists and spreading FUD. Individuals had no hope of picking out the truth of this and we only saw real change in rates of smoking when government intervened to stop the manipulation. And the FUD wasn't all simple plain fraud. It's a consistant drip-feed of messages like "we all die, you might get hit by a bus" or "smoking isn't that addictive" (because physically, it isn' that addictive).
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  You're rolling up several issues here. 1) It's none of the Government's business what smoking rates are. All that should matter to the Government is whether smokers are being lied to about cigarettes, i.e., whether their rights are being violated. 2) Some of the FUD was fraud, and thus should be the subject of a) lawsuits, and b) criminal charges. 3) The rest of it wasn't fraud, as you correctly point out, and therefore ought to be legal. 4) Individuals had no hope of picking out the truth of this is patently untrue. Many individuals did.

jakeogh 11y ago

"prohibitions on fraud"? You mean have a group of people who decide what is true? Isn't that better known as Not-Libertarianism?

maxxxxx 11y ago
That's the question I always ask and never get an answer.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Maybe you're asking anarchists ;)
  - jakeogh 11y ago
    (much) stronger reverence for the 1st Amendment != Anarchy.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      Could you please elaborate on that? I think you may be conflating prohibitions on speech based on their perceived truthfulness, vs. the need to decide on objective truth in a courtroom. E.g. I should be perfectly free to say "the world is flat" or "my religion is the only truth". But if I'm ever in court on a related matter, I'd better be able to prove it.
duncan_bayne 11y ago
You mean have a group of people who decide what is true? Yes. That's the way society works; in a civilised country, that decision is made through the courts, based on laws created by a democratic Government[1]. Isn't that better known as Not-Libertarianism? No, it's better known as Not-Anarchism. Please stop conflating anarchism with Libertarianism. [1] Not necessarily an elected one. There's more than one way to achieve democracy; selecting the Government by random ballot from the citizenry, a.k.a. sortition, is one alternative to voting. It also happens to be my preferred one.

maxxxxx 11y ago

"Lawyers working on behalf of those bringing class-action suits against the manufacturers." Who can afford that? You will always be outmatched be by big corporations. "Not at all. It took forever for the justice system to overcome the massive lobbying and corruption that was protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits over their fraudulent advertising. " In what way would the situation improve if there was no regulation? There would be even more corruption. Just look at the ratings agencies during the 2008 crisis. They were supposed to be a market based information source but in reality they were paid off. There is a lot that's wrong with agencies like the EPA but abolishing them and dreaming up market based solutions that are corruption free doesn't seem to be realistic to me.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Who can afford that? You will always be outmatched be by big corporations. That's clearly untrue; class-action lawsuits are regularly successful against big corporations without Government intervention (other than the provision of the justice system itself). Just look at the ratings agencies during the 2008 crisis. They were supposed to be a market based information source but in reality they were paid off. Sure. And many people who relied on them got burned. The moral hazard arose when the Government decided to bail out people and organisations who'd depended upon them, with money extracted from taxpayers by threat of force. I'd also point out that a lot of the corruption you mention is Governmental; many of those subprime loans only existed because of market intervention in the first place. There is a lot that's wrong with agencies like the EPA but abolishing them and dreaming up market based solutions that are corruption free doesn't seem to be realistic to me. Me neither. As I've said before, I think it's entirely reasonable for a Libertarian Government to regulate polluting activities. The caveat is that such legislation must be rights-protecting, rational, and uniformly enforced. Also, in the case of the USA, there's no Constitutional mandate for a Federal EPA so it ought to be dissolved and its responsibilities taken up by the States.

DanBC 11y ago

> Not at all. It took forever for the justice system to overcome the massive lobbying and corruption that was protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits over their fraudulent advertising. Isn't that the point? Tobacco companies had vast sums of money to spend buying scientists and spreading FUD. Individuals had no hope of picking out the truth of this and we only saw real change in rates of smoking when government intervened to stop the manipulation. And the FUD wasn't all simple plain fraud. It's a consistant drip-feed of messages like "we all die, you might get hit by a bus" or "smoking isn't that addictive" (because physically, it isn' that addictive).

duncan_bayne 11y ago
You're rolling up several issues here. 1) It's none of the Government's business what smoking rates are. All that should matter to the Government is whether smokers are being lied to about cigarettes, i.e., whether their rights are being violated. 2) Some of the FUD was fraud, and thus should be the subject of a) lawsuits, and b) criminal charges. 3) The rest of it wasn't fraud, as you correctly point out, and therefore ought to be legal. 4) Individuals had no hope of picking out the truth of this is patently untrue. Many individuals did.