3 ms·

I'm sorry, but what you're replying with is kind of the standard libertarian fantasy. Shrink the reach of the federal government, and we'd be looking at rule b

by Frondo 11y ago

I'm sorry, but what you're replying with is kind of the standard libertarian fantasy. Shrink the reach of the federal government, and we'd be looking at rule by corporations, i.e. that don't answer to us not only in practice, but by design. How we know this? Weeelll, just look back a hundred years, when we had a significantly smaller federal government. Big businesses had far, far more power than they do now. Libertarianism surely sounds good. That's part of its enduring appeal. But for real-life workings? Nah. For anyone interested, this is a pretty good place to start unraveling the usual libertarian fare: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

bmelton 11y ago
And you're replying with the standard statist fantasy. Growing the federal government to protect us from all the evils of corporations is at least as naive an ideal as the libertarian one you are railing against, and moreover, presents a false dichotomy. American government is likely more an oligarchy now than it ever has been. So long as the policies are there that give the federal government influence, that influence will be exploited. If we can accept that neither unrestrained corporate power or oligarchical control of government is good, then we should be able to accept that the solution is in some middle ground, and ideological appeals to either end of the spectrum is likely ill founded.
- Frondo 11y ago
  We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things. I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history, and it doesn't work out the way it's supposed to wherever it's been tried. As best we have it, evidence simply doesn't support that libertarian policy ideas work the way they're supposed to. As for "statist fantasy," well, here we are: through a long, slow process of democratic engagement, we have agencies that protect our environment, improve road safety, keep workplace hazards minimal, and work to minimize discrimination in the workplace. None of them, of course, are perfect, but they all came about in response to something, some perceived imperfection in the world. People voted in politicians who reflected their values, and that eventually filtered into what we have now. But, you know, nothing's ever perfect, and it's always a process of refinement. The difference between my "statist fantasy" and the libertarian one is that I see that, by means of government, we're slowly getting the world we want. Giving free reign back to big business, to turn the environment and workplace back into a free-for-all, how much sense does that make?
  - bmelton 11y ago
    > We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things Fair. > I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history That's arguable, really, and depends on how one defines "libertarian". I tend to get lumped in with libertarians (and even self-profess to be one when the label is convenient), but depending on your definition, early America certainly can fit the bill. Were there evils done in that time? Absolutely. Are there evils done today? Absolutely. For every agency you listed, I could list evils that they do as well, and more specifically, evils that benefit either only themselves or the corporations that have demanded them. I agree that nothing is perfect, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that there isn't a place for government protection from corporate evils -- but at the same time, it's worth refraining from dismissing entire ideologies out of hand, especially as not every libertarian argument reflects the scenario you portrayed. It's also worth noting that the libertarian argument, or at least the constitutionalist argument, doesn't mean that the abolition of, say, OSHA, will result in a complete and total lack of workplace safety regulation. The states can and should enforce workplace safety standards, and as the states are (in theory) more answerable to their people, that should be more reflective of public will. I definitely agree that nothing is a panacea, and I'm not really arguing in favor of either ideology, except to point out that just because A is not right, that doesn't mean that B necessarily is.
maratd 11y ago
> Shrink the reach of the federal government, and we'd be looking at rule by corporations Nonsense. The corporations are given free reign and support by the government. If the government didn't establish favorable regulations, they would be slowly whittled away by their smaller, nimbler competitors. Economies of scale aren't a simple slope. They're a bell curve. After you get to a certain size, any additional growth is detrimental and you can only exist through artificial means. Get rid of big government and you get rid of big corporations too!
- Frondo 11y ago
  There's no competitive advantage to not polluting, or we wouldn't ever have needed an EPA in the first place! There's such an imbalance of power between employer and employee that there's no meaningful competitive advantage to a safe workplace; if employees really were all self-empowered free agents, and not scared and hungry people with families and children to support, we wouldn't have needed an OSHA in the first place! All the regulations the libertarians want to turn back, they all came about in response to the world working so imperfectly that it had to be changed with force of law. Undoing that, on the basis of a theory with absolutely no real-world evidence of working? That just doesn't make sense.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > There's no competitive advantage to not polluting, or we wouldn't ever have needed an EPA in the first place! Why do you need the EPA again? My local government represents my locality. It can easily sue in civil court for any damage to the environment and use the resulting funds to make repairs. With the feds stepping in, makes this scenario much more complicated and difficult. They have jurisdiction. > There's such an imbalance of power between employer and employee > self-empowered free agents Let me posit that if you have a traditional employer, you are not a "self-empowered free agent". Ditch your employer. Thank the maker we're slowly moving toward that eventuality. > All the regulations the libertarians want to turn back, they all came about in response to the world working so imperfectly That's one possibility. Another is that "special interests" lobbied for those changes at which point the politician came up with a more pleasant justification for said regulations, sold them to the ignorant public, and now they're in place. Which do you think is more likely?

by Frondo 11y ago

bmelton 11y ago

And you're replying with the standard statist fantasy. Growing the federal government to protect us from all the evils of corporations is at least as naive an ideal as the libertarian one you are railing against, and moreover, presents a false dichotomy. American government is likely more an oligarchy now than it ever has been. So long as the policies are there that give the federal government influence, that influence will be exploited. If we can accept that neither unrestrained corporate power or oligarchical control of government is good, then we should be able to accept that the solution is in some middle ground, and ideological appeals to either end of the spectrum is likely ill founded.

Frondo 11y ago
We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things. I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history, and it doesn't work out the way it's supposed to wherever it's been tried. As best we have it, evidence simply doesn't support that libertarian policy ideas work the way they're supposed to. As for "statist fantasy," well, here we are: through a long, slow process of democratic engagement, we have agencies that protect our environment, improve road safety, keep workplace hazards minimal, and work to minimize discrimination in the workplace. None of them, of course, are perfect, but they all came about in response to something, some perceived imperfection in the world. People voted in politicians who reflected their values, and that eventually filtered into what we have now. But, you know, nothing's ever perfect, and it's always a process of refinement. The difference between my "statist fantasy" and the libertarian one is that I see that, by means of government, we're slowly getting the world we want. Giving free reign back to big business, to turn the environment and workplace back into a free-for-all, how much sense does that make?
- bmelton 11y ago
  > We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things Fair. > I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history That's arguable, really, and depends on how one defines "libertarian". I tend to get lumped in with libertarians (and even self-profess to be one when the label is convenient), but depending on your definition, early America certainly can fit the bill. Were there evils done in that time? Absolutely. Are there evils done today? Absolutely. For every agency you listed, I could list evils that they do as well, and more specifically, evils that benefit either only themselves or the corporations that have demanded them. I agree that nothing is perfect, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that there isn't a place for government protection from corporate evils -- but at the same time, it's worth refraining from dismissing entire ideologies out of hand, especially as not every libertarian argument reflects the scenario you portrayed. It's also worth noting that the libertarian argument, or at least the constitutionalist argument, doesn't mean that the abolition of, say, OSHA, will result in a complete and total lack of workplace safety regulation. The states can and should enforce workplace safety standards, and as the states are (in theory) more answerable to their people, that should be more reflective of public will. I definitely agree that nothing is a panacea, and I'm not really arguing in favor of either ideology, except to point out that just because A is not right, that doesn't mean that B necessarily is.

maratd 11y ago

> Shrink the reach of the federal government, and we'd be looking at rule by corporations Nonsense. The corporations are given free reign and support by the government. If the government didn't establish favorable regulations, they would be slowly whittled away by their smaller, nimbler competitors. Economies of scale aren't a simple slope. They're a bell curve. After you get to a certain size, any additional growth is detrimental and you can only exist through artificial means. Get rid of big government and you get rid of big corporations too!

Frondo 11y ago
There's no competitive advantage to not polluting, or we wouldn't ever have needed an EPA in the first place! There's such an imbalance of power between employer and employee that there's no meaningful competitive advantage to a safe workplace; if employees really were all self-empowered free agents, and not scared and hungry people with families and children to support, we wouldn't have needed an OSHA in the first place! All the regulations the libertarians want to turn back, they all came about in response to the world working so imperfectly that it had to be changed with force of law. Undoing that, on the basis of a theory with absolutely no real-world evidence of working? That just doesn't make sense.
- maratd 11y ago
  > There's no competitive advantage to not polluting, or we wouldn't ever have needed an EPA in the first place! Why do you need the EPA again? My local government represents my locality. It can easily sue in civil court for any damage to the environment and use the resulting funds to make repairs. With the feds stepping in, makes this scenario much more complicated and difficult. They have jurisdiction. > There's such an imbalance of power between employer and employee > self-empowered free agents Let me posit that if you have a traditional employer, you are not a "self-empowered free agent". Ditch your employer. Thank the maker we're slowly moving toward that eventuality. > All the regulations the libertarians want to turn back, they all came about in response to the world working so imperfectly That's one possibility. Another is that "special interests" lobbied for those changes at which point the politician came up with a more pleasant justification for said regulations, sold them to the ignorant public, and now they're in place. Which do you think is more likely?