13 ms·

I wonder if Libertarians incorporate into their economic view that companies tend to do whatever they can get away with if it helps the bottom line, even if thi

I wonder if Libertarians incorporate into their economic view that companies tend to do whatever they can get away with if it helps the bottom line, even if this is ultimately harmful?

rwallace 9y ago
I would describe myself as a pragmatic libertarian; part of the reason for the adjective is that, yes, I acknowledge the need for regulation in cases like this.
- neolefty 9y ago
  By that definition, I think every single human being would describe themselves as "pragmatic libertarian".
  - rwallace 9y ago
    Not quite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    Given the existence and size of anti-liber{tarian, al} movements in today's politics, I very much doubt this.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Yeah, no. A pragmatic libertarian would reach for regulations only when no other option exists. I would say a lot of human reach for regulations as the first option.
    - majormajor 9y ago
      What do you see as the "first line" options if a company is behaving maliciously and consumer choice alone hasn't put them out of business? I'd rather have some kind of regulation at that point rather than, say, media shaming - the former is more likely to result in a process that looks at evidence when deciding if enforcement is needed, versus hysteria.
      - djsumdog 9y ago
        When you really start to talk to libertarians, you'll find lots of exceptions. There are concepts like geo-libertarianism (lease land for use in a utilitarian fashion, essentially what countries like Mexico do where you can't own land, but you can get a 99 year lease). Many libertarians will say they support some form of health care, police, fire, etc, etc. I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the views of many (not all) libertarians, and they don't want to acknowledge China and India are pretty much perfect cases of true or extreme versions of that system (more due to the inability to enforce regulations than lack of regulations themselves). High standards are only really enforceable through high socialized systems, like those in the US, EU, AU, Singapore, Japan, etc. You need to have national standards to guarantee food safety, water safety (bottled water is less safe than tap water in developed nations with municipal water regulation, and cost way less or is free), minimum standards for health, doctor certifications (vs quacks selling snake oil), et cetera.
minikites 9y ago
I've never seen a libertarian answer to how that philosophy would solve global climate change so I very much doubt it.
- ballenf 9y ago
  One answer I've heard is that libertarian policies promote fast economic development. Well-off nations and people don't want to be around pollution and can afford and demand cleaner tech. Forcing developing nations to adopt the policies of the wealthy creates an understandable tension and incentive for cheating the regs.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Well, I don't see much solutions to climate change happening now. Libertarian approach would be simply adopt to the new situation, as I realistically see many people just don't care or believe. So I would (and do) still try to act as ethical as possible and go all for green technologies, but I doubt it can be forced up on people and do much good in the end, if people are not convinced of it.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    You're right that most people don't care about climate change. They may say they do, but look at behaviors. Ford is having trouble making enough $100K Lincoln Navigator SUVs, so high is the demand for them.
- pmcollins 9y ago
  I think that you can call yourself a libertarian and still be in favor of the state compensating for negative externalities.
- Helmet 9y ago
  Maybe because it's a ridiculously vague and abstruse question that presupposes a set of ideas that libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter, never set out to directly answer? Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not). The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels. A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.
minikites 9y ago
Snarky answer: if they thought about that, they wouldn't be libertarians.
hutzlibu 9y ago
Well, apparently we do have trillions of laws and regulations and companies still can allmost do whatever they want. Because people still buy it as most consumers don't give a shit. Or (imagine) that they can't afford to care. This is the root problem I believe. Poverty and stupidity. So in my imaginary libertarian world, people are rich and smart enough(because they learned to think and act for themselves) to avoid companies, who do practice things like that. And therefore those companies would go bankrupt. (oh and for more direct harmful actions like pollution water/air, allmost all Libertarians would agree to direct action against)
- mjburgess 9y ago
  The answer seems, then, "No". These laws and institutions to enforce them do not exist in india, that's the problem They do in the EU, and this doesn't happen. Markets are economic systems that separate people into amoral atoms that have no mechanism to turn moral agreement into general behaviour. Even if I agreed something should happen, my isolation from others makes my individual actions a form of charity and an injury to myself. If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses. Yet if all-at-once agreed, no business is making a loss with respect to another. I cannot really imagine what place libertarians really want to live in. They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others. It isnt. The attempt to make it one creates markets for murder, rape, etc. as natural concequences of people's moral isolation.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    "They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others" Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals. Also if we individuals decide to form a group, for example for insurance and help those in need. "If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses" Unless it openly adverts about this practice amd people who do care, are therefore willing to spend more money on this company. This is happening a lot right now with organic food and other things (sure, some might only do it, for themselve - better food quality, but not all and even those still feel better, as they know they also help biodiversity and a enjoyable landscape) edit: and those laws don't exist there, because people don't care there. Laws are just another way of expressing the will of people. I just prefer laws to be the last way and not the standard.
clarkmoody 9y ago
What is it with Hacker News and unprovoked attacks on libertarians? (but since I can't resist) Of course libertarians consider self-interest in their thinking about a free society. Your key term is "get away with" and it points to the problems with regulatory agencies. When a government body has placed its seal of approval on a product, it does two things: a) Causes many consumers to trust the benefits / safety of the product, since the government said it's ok. (And they never lie to us, right?) b) Gives the corporation wiggle room within the certification, potentially changing the product for the worse while maintaining its approval. But if you take a step back, the limited-liability corporation is a fiction of the state in the first place. Hiding behind a "corporate person" could be a huge factor in bad behavior, enabled by state action. After the financial crisis in 2008, many lamented the fact that none of the bankers went to jail (although some corporations were heavily fined). Perhaps limited liability is the problem. If members of corporations were on the hook personally for injury to consumers, they might behave better?
- Daishiman 9y ago
  Your thesis is 100% inconsistent with the history of food safety regulations. Sure, put the people in corporations personally liable without any government agency inspecting. You're going to a society ten times more litigious than the US. People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things. Your proposition is beyond ridiculous, and that's what merits attacks on the profound naivete of libertarian approaches.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    > Your thesis is 100% inconsistent with the history of food safety regulations. Source? > People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things. How is that different than now? > Your proposition is beyond ridiculous Say you, without providing any proposition of your own.
    - Daishiman 9y ago
      Go google "history of food safety" yourself. C'mon.
ataturk 9y ago
What with the Big "L" hate anyways? A market-based solution is underway--the first thing is educating the public, which is hard to do in countries like India and China where the masses are hopelessly poor and ignorant and kept that way on purpose. Despite that situation, once word gets out to people that animals pumped up with antibiotics are disgusting and harmful to public health, the reaction is swift. Or did you think it was regulation in the US that has shifted food production in the US towards animals raised without antibiotics? Seen the labeling on foods lately? Every producer is touting hormone-free this and antibiotic-free that. What we might need is proof, which is what meat inspectors do, right?
zo1 9y ago
People already care very-little about this problem enough to convince their governments to do something about it. That applies to the Indian populace, as well as other countries that aren't currently pressuring/sanctioning/bombing India to prevent a biological disaster (so we're told). So I don't really see how your criticism against Libertarianism applies here because governments are letting it happen right now. It's only you, and what appears to be a minority of individuals, that cares about it. If it were a majority, then Democracy would be fixing it right now, right? And, to answer your actual question: I can't answer it for every single person out there. That's how non-government solutions look like. Each individual voting, acting and caring about each specific problem in his or her own way. Libertarianism is the ultimate form of Democracy in that regard.
anonymous5133 9y ago
I view myself as libertarian but I believe in something called ethical capitalism which basically means the buyer/sellers in a free market all agree willingly to not engage in unethical behaviors. The idea is that buyers would refuse to buy from unethical businesses which forces them out of the market and likewise sellers would be inclined to be ethical to attract business. It ends up being a self-reinforcing cycle.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Reminds me of the John Adams quote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." A lot of nice things are theoretically possible when everyone behaves. Too bad the real world doesn't work that way.
- orf 9y ago
  But this is a complete fantasy, right? It's completely at odds with actual capitalism. The cycles your proposing would happen would be broken the moment an unethical company is able to appear as an ethical one, which is not exactly hard.
dang 9y ago
Could you please not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents? They're off topic here because like all generic threads, they're predictable, and like all political threads they lead to flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I wonder if Libertarians incorporate into their economic view that companies tend to do whatever they can get away with if it helps the bottom line, even if this is ultimately harmful?

rwallace 9y ago

I would describe myself as a pragmatic libertarian; part of the reason for the adjective is that, yes, I acknowledge the need for regulation in cases like this.

neolefty 9y ago
By that definition, I think every single human being would describe themselves as "pragmatic libertarian".
- rwallace 9y ago
  Not quite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
- blattimwind 9y ago
  Given the existence and size of anti-liber{tarian, al} movements in today's politics, I very much doubt this.
- refurb 9y ago
  Yeah, no. A pragmatic libertarian would reach for regulations only when no other option exists. I would say a lot of human reach for regulations as the first option.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    What do you see as the "first line" options if a company is behaving maliciously and consumer choice alone hasn't put them out of business? I'd rather have some kind of regulation at that point rather than, say, media shaming - the former is more likely to result in a process that looks at evidence when deciding if enforcement is needed, versus hysteria.
    - djsumdog 9y ago
      When you really start to talk to libertarians, you'll find lots of exceptions. There are concepts like geo-libertarianism (lease land for use in a utilitarian fashion, essentially what countries like Mexico do where you can't own land, but you can get a 99 year lease). Many libertarians will say they support some form of health care, police, fire, etc, etc. I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the views of many (not all) libertarians, and they don't want to acknowledge China and India are pretty much perfect cases of true or extreme versions of that system (more due to the inability to enforce regulations than lack of regulations themselves). High standards are only really enforceable through high socialized systems, like those in the US, EU, AU, Singapore, Japan, etc. You need to have national standards to guarantee food safety, water safety (bottled water is less safe than tap water in developed nations with municipal water regulation, and cost way less or is free), minimum standards for health, doctor certifications (vs quacks selling snake oil), et cetera.

minikites 9y ago

I've never seen a libertarian answer to how that philosophy would solve global climate change so I very much doubt it.

ballenf 9y ago
One answer I've heard is that libertarian policies promote fast economic development. Well-off nations and people don't want to be around pollution and can afford and demand cleaner tech. Forcing developing nations to adopt the policies of the wealthy creates an understandable tension and incentive for cheating the regs.
hutzlibu 9y ago
Well, I don't see much solutions to climate change happening now. Libertarian approach would be simply adopt to the new situation, as I realistically see many people just don't care or believe. So I would (and do) still try to act as ethical as possible and go all for green technologies, but I doubt it can be forced up on people and do much good in the end, if people are not convinced of it.
- ams6110 9y ago
  You're right that most people don't care about climate change. They may say they do, but look at behaviors. Ford is having trouble making enough $100K Lincoln Navigator SUVs, so high is the demand for them.
pmcollins 9y ago
I think that you can call yourself a libertarian and still be in favor of the state compensating for negative externalities.
Helmet 9y ago
Maybe because it's a ridiculously vague and abstruse question that presupposes a set of ideas that libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter, never set out to directly answer? Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not). The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels. A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.

minikites 9y ago

Snarky answer: if they thought about that, they wouldn't be libertarians.

hutzlibu 9y ago

Well, apparently we do have trillions of laws and regulations and companies still can allmost do whatever they want. Because people still buy it as most consumers don't give a shit. Or (imagine) that they can't afford to care. This is the root problem I believe. Poverty and stupidity. So in my imaginary libertarian world, people are rich and smart enough(because they learned to think and act for themselves) to avoid companies, who do practice things like that. And therefore those companies would go bankrupt. (oh and for more direct harmful actions like pollution water/air, allmost all Libertarians would agree to direct action against)

mjburgess 9y ago
The answer seems, then, "No". These laws and institutions to enforce them do not exist in india, that's the problem They do in the EU, and this doesn't happen. Markets are economic systems that separate people into amoral atoms that have no mechanism to turn moral agreement into general behaviour. Even if I agreed something should happen, my isolation from others makes my individual actions a form of charity and an injury to myself. If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses. Yet if all-at-once agreed, no business is making a loss with respect to another. I cannot really imagine what place libertarians really want to live in. They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others. It isnt. The attempt to make it one creates markets for murder, rape, etc. as natural concequences of people's moral isolation.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  "They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others" Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals. Also if we individuals decide to form a group, for example for insurance and help those in need. "If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses" Unless it openly adverts about this practice amd people who do care, are therefore willing to spend more money on this company. This is happening a lot right now with organic food and other things (sure, some might only do it, for themselve - better food quality, but not all and even those still feel better, as they know they also help biodiversity and a enjoyable landscape) edit: and those laws don't exist there, because people don't care there. Laws are just another way of expressing the will of people. I just prefer laws to be the last way and not the standard.

clarkmoody 9y ago

What is it with Hacker News and unprovoked attacks on libertarians? (but since I can't resist) Of course libertarians consider self-interest in their thinking about a free society. Your key term is "get away with" and it points to the problems with regulatory agencies. When a government body has placed its seal of approval on a product, it does two things: a) Causes many consumers to trust the benefits / safety of the product, since the government said it's ok. (And they never lie to us, right?) b) Gives the corporation wiggle room within the certification, potentially changing the product for the worse while maintaining its approval. But if you take a step back, the limited-liability corporation is a fiction of the state in the first place. Hiding behind a "corporate person" could be a huge factor in bad behavior, enabled by state action. After the financial crisis in 2008, many lamented the fact that none of the bankers went to jail (although some corporations were heavily fined). Perhaps limited liability is the problem. If members of corporations were on the hook personally for injury to consumers, they might behave better?

Daishiman 9y ago
Your thesis is 100% inconsistent with the history of food safety regulations. Sure, put the people in corporations personally liable without any government agency inspecting. You're going to a society ten times more litigious than the US. People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things. Your proposition is beyond ridiculous, and that's what merits attacks on the profound naivete of libertarian approaches.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > Your thesis is 100% inconsistent with the history of food safety regulations. Source? > People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things. How is that different than now? > Your proposition is beyond ridiculous Say you, without providing any proposition of your own.
  - Daishiman 9y ago
    Go google "history of food safety" yourself. C'mon.

ataturk 9y ago

What with the Big "L" hate anyways? A market-based solution is underway--the first thing is educating the public, which is hard to do in countries like India and China where the masses are hopelessly poor and ignorant and kept that way on purpose. Despite that situation, once word gets out to people that animals pumped up with antibiotics are disgusting and harmful to public health, the reaction is swift. Or did you think it was regulation in the US that has shifted food production in the US towards animals raised without antibiotics? Seen the labeling on foods lately? Every producer is touting hormone-free this and antibiotic-free that. What we might need is proof, which is what meat inspectors do, right?

zo1 9y ago

People already care very-little about this problem enough to convince their governments to do something about it. That applies to the Indian populace, as well as other countries that aren't currently pressuring/sanctioning/bombing India to prevent a biological disaster (so we're told). So I don't really see how your criticism against Libertarianism applies here because governments are letting it happen right now. It's only you, and what appears to be a minority of individuals, that cares about it. If it were a majority, then Democracy would be fixing it right now, right? And, to answer your actual question: I can't answer it for every single person out there. That's how non-government solutions look like. Each individual voting, acting and caring about each specific problem in his or her own way. Libertarianism is the ultimate form of Democracy in that regard.

anonymous5133 9y ago

I view myself as libertarian but I believe in something called ethical capitalism which basically means the buyer/sellers in a free market all agree willingly to not engage in unethical behaviors. The idea is that buyers would refuse to buy from unethical businesses which forces them out of the market and likewise sellers would be inclined to be ethical to attract business. It ends up being a self-reinforcing cycle.

ams6110 9y ago
Reminds me of the John Adams quote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." A lot of nice things are theoretically possible when everyone behaves. Too bad the real world doesn't work that way.
orf 9y ago
But this is a complete fantasy, right? It's completely at odds with actual capitalism. The cycles your proposing would happen would be broken the moment an unethical company is able to appear as an ethical one, which is not exactly hard.

dang 9y ago

Could you please not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents? They're off topic here because like all generic threads, they're predictable, and like all political threads they lead to flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html