4 ms·

"If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." -James Madison Hence effective, nuanced regulation is absolutely vital and libertarianism is an ill

"If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." -James Madison Hence effective, nuanced regulation is absolutely vital and libertarianism is an illusionary utopia like communism, with sensible and practical being somewhere in the middle.

vidarh 10y ago
Libertarianism comes from the left, first used by an anarcho-communist. Between libertarianism and communism there's nothing.... Yes, I know what you mean, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Right-wing libertarianism differ from left-wing libertarianism in the view on property in particular. But neither see regulation as always unacceptable, but "just" want government actions to maximize liberty. This can lead to very different outcomes depending on how you think. E.g. food safety regulations will restrict the liberty of both seller and buyer. But at the same time if properly done they protect the buyer against potentially far worse damage to liberty - ultimately potentially costing the buyers life. The seller on the other hand at worst suffers a loss of revenue. There are further few cases where the buyer would knowingly and willingly buy unsafe food without intending to put others at the risk of harm. As such the ultimate consumer's liberty is likely to be at greater risk than the sellers liberty in the absence of regulation. Weighing the relative impact on liberty, some degree of food safety rules would seem to be the lesser evil. I'm not saying that's the only alternative or right intrpretation, but that libertarianism in general is more complicated than just stripping all rules. Stripping the wrong regulation can have a greater negative than positive impact on liberty
- mikeash 10y ago
  Maybe instead of trying to write specific regulations for every little thing, we should just equalize this imbalance of damage. If a seller's misbehavior causes a buyer's death, then consider that as murder. If it's premeditated, execute the people responsible. OK, I don't really think this would be a good idea, but I do think it's worth at least thinking about how that would look and why we don't do it. Why is it that the alternative to regulation must always be "caveat emptor"? If a company deliberately sells a faulty product that kills a customer, they should be treated just like a common criminal who breaks into someone's house and shoots them. From this perspective, regulations are as much about protecting the sellers as it is about protecting the buyers.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    When the seller knows that will be the result, that basically is what happens. The problem is that most accidents are accidents. You can't deter someone from causing something they don't expect to happen. And if they aren't deterred then they have to pay for the damages, but it's easy to cause more damage than you have money to pay for it. So we end up on a quest to solve that problem without destroying individuals and small businesses (which would be destroyed immediately by e.g. a large bonding requirement).
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Do you have an example of someone being executed because they intentionally sold a faulty product? We have laws against negligence as well. You absolutely can deter people from accidentally getting people killed to some extent, or at least our laws seem to think we can. Someone guilty of involuntary manslaughter can't pay back the damage they've done, but we still punish them under the theory that this encourages people to take some care when other people's lives might be at risk. If making sellers responsible for accidental death and injury would destroy individuals and small businesses, this just reinforces my point that regulations protect sellers as much as buyers.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > Do you have an example of someone being executed because they intentionally sold a faulty product? If a pharmacist decides she really hates Bob and is going to swap his medicine for poison, she goes down for murder. That obviously doesn't happen very often because the penalty for murder is high and serves as a very effective deterrent to intentional killings like that. > We have laws against negligence as well. You absolutely can deter people from accidentally getting people killed to some extent, or at least our laws seem to think we can. It's not that you can't deter some of them, it's that you can't deter enough of them, because they aren't doing it on purpose. > If making sellers responsible for accidental death and injury would destroy individuals and small businesses, this just reinforces my point that regulations protect sellers as much as buyers. The problem is regulations often do the same thing. Many regulatory compliance costs are fixed -- they cost the same million dollars whether you have a billion customers or just three.

vidarh 10y ago

Libertarianism comes from the left, first used by an anarcho-communist. Between libertarianism and communism there's nothing.... Yes, I know what you mean, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Right-wing libertarianism differ from left-wing libertarianism in the view on property in particular. But neither see regulation as always unacceptable, but "just" want government actions to maximize liberty. This can lead to very different outcomes depending on how you think. E.g. food safety regulations will restrict the liberty of both seller and buyer. But at the same time if properly done they protect the buyer against potentially far worse damage to liberty - ultimately potentially costing the buyers life. The seller on the other hand at worst suffers a loss of revenue. There are further few cases where the buyer would knowingly and willingly buy unsafe food without intending to put others at the risk of harm. As such the ultimate consumer's liberty is likely to be at greater risk than the sellers liberty in the absence of regulation. Weighing the relative impact on liberty, some degree of food safety rules would seem to be the lesser evil. I'm not saying that's the only alternative or right intrpretation, but that libertarianism in general is more complicated than just stripping all rules. Stripping the wrong regulation can have a greater negative than positive impact on liberty

mikeash 10y ago
Maybe instead of trying to write specific regulations for every little thing, we should just equalize this imbalance of damage. If a seller's misbehavior causes a buyer's death, then consider that as murder. If it's premeditated, execute the people responsible. OK, I don't really think this would be a good idea, but I do think it's worth at least thinking about how that would look and why we don't do it. Why is it that the alternative to regulation must always be "caveat emptor"? If a company deliberately sells a faulty product that kills a customer, they should be treated just like a common criminal who breaks into someone's house and shoots them. From this perspective, regulations are as much about protecting the sellers as it is about protecting the buyers.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  When the seller knows that will be the result, that basically is what happens. The problem is that most accidents are accidents. You can't deter someone from causing something they don't expect to happen. And if they aren't deterred then they have to pay for the damages, but it's easy to cause more damage than you have money to pay for it. So we end up on a quest to solve that problem without destroying individuals and small businesses (which would be destroyed immediately by e.g. a large bonding requirement).
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Do you have an example of someone being executed because they intentionally sold a faulty product? We have laws against negligence as well. You absolutely can deter people from accidentally getting people killed to some extent, or at least our laws seem to think we can. Someone guilty of involuntary manslaughter can't pay back the damage they've done, but we still punish them under the theory that this encourages people to take some care when other people's lives might be at risk. If making sellers responsible for accidental death and injury would destroy individuals and small businesses, this just reinforces my point that regulations protect sellers as much as buyers.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > Do you have an example of someone being executed because they intentionally sold a faulty product? If a pharmacist decides she really hates Bob and is going to swap his medicine for poison, she goes down for murder. That obviously doesn't happen very often because the penalty for murder is high and serves as a very effective deterrent to intentional killings like that. > We have laws against negligence as well. You absolutely can deter people from accidentally getting people killed to some extent, or at least our laws seem to think we can. It's not that you can't deter some of them, it's that you can't deter enough of them, because they aren't doing it on purpose. > If making sellers responsible for accidental death and injury would destroy individuals and small businesses, this just reinforces my point that regulations protect sellers as much as buyers. The problem is regulations often do the same thing. Many regulatory compliance costs are fixed -- they cost the same million dollars whether you have a billion customers or just three.