4 ms·

The strongly libertarian/anti-regulation folks really don’t seem to have an answer for this. And it’s where thier whole philosophy falls down because it so fund

by erentz 8y ago

The strongly libertarian/anti-regulation folks really don’t seem to have an answer for this. And it’s where thier whole philosophy falls down because it so fundamentally ignores human behavior so it’ll never work. Sure, imagine you could just pull a trigger and one day remove all regulations. Then see what happens. Buildings will collapse, people will organize to require building standards. Quacks will kill patients. People will organize to require testing of drugs. It’ll all just build up again. Rules (however you want to define and manage them) exist everywhere, they’re an unavoidable consequence of society. I think the strongly libertarians/anti-regulation folks need to come up with solutions to over regulation, bad regulation, regulatory capture, etc that work within a realistic understanding that humans are humans. Then they might get somewhere, propose some changes that help everyone in the process. (Though I sometimes think there’s a contradiction there that if you do understand other humans you don’t tend to end up so far down the libertarian scale in the first place)

InitialLastName 8y ago
> Though I sometimes think there’s a contradiction there that if you do understand other humans you don’t tend to end up so far down the libertarian scale in the first place I've started to come to the conclusion that anyone who studies economics, systems, and political science more than they study psychology, sociology, and history is at dire risk of becoming a libertarian.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  If you think you might be becoming a libertarian, just do a video search for "Chinese escalator", and cling as hard as you can to the necessity of building codes, regular inspections, insurance underwriting, and civil torts.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    I'll never be a libertarian; I think it's too important that humans have the ability to live their lives with dignity, and I'm fully aware of how infrequently that happens when government is limited.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      I'm fully aware of how infrequently that happens when government is limited. What do you mean?
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      I'm an anarchist; I think it's too important that humans have the ability to live their lives with dignity, and I'm fully aware of how infrequently that happens when anti-government is limited. Practical anarchist, though. Gratuitous rebellion for its own sake is counterproductive. It is necessary that humans come together in cooperation to accomplish goals otherwise impossible without cartels, to break the Nash equilibriums. But it is also necessary to dismantle and diffuse concentrations of power when they become destructive to their original aims. The more permanent an institution, the more inefficient and corruptible it can become as time passes. Corporations need to sometimes fail and be replaced by scrappy startups. Governments need to sometimes hand over power to a different political bloc. Religions need to sometimes have ideological schisms. Statues and monuments sometimes need to be taken down and warehoused. Perfectly good uniforms sometimes need to be replaced with different designs. Sometimes, the fortunes of the rich need to be squandered, stolen, or sunk. The impulse to rebel must be satisfied, and one would hope that it is possible without violent rebellion, but that is sometimes unavoidable, if the entrenched power structure in question proves unwilling to diminish itself peacefully. As it is now, my primary concerns are the increasing concentrations of wealth to fewer people, and consolidating ownership of communications media, broadcast and network channels, and intellectual property. These are self-reinforcing, and can lead to a runaway, much like increasing atmospheric CO2 can trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. The healthcare/health-insurance industry is a potential future threat, but it isn't yet too late for them to sort themselves out through rational analysis and discussion.
      - InitialLastName 8y ago
        > As it is now, my primary concerns are the increasing concentrations of wealth to fewer people, and consolidating ownership of communications media, broadcast and network channels, and intellectual property. All of those issues, as far as I can tell, are actually a BIGGER problem in the various parts of the world (and of world history) with weaker state mechanisms, in terms of the ability of the largest portion of their populations to reach as far as possible up Maslow's heirarchy.
da_chicken 8y ago
> The strongly libertarian/anti-regulation folks really don’t seem to have an answer for this. And it’s where there whole philosophy falls down because it so fundamentally ignores human behavior so it’ll never work. Sure they do. "The invisible hand of the market"! Which requires customers to have perfect knowledge of the market to work. Somehow they can't fathom that someone who is willing to harm others in order to make a profit might also be willing to act dishonestly and commit fraud in order to make even more profit. The other argument is, "Well, it would happen anyways with regulation!" Which is true, but, just like the "bad regulation" and "regulatory capture" arguments, effectvely boils down to saying, "I don't need to go to the doctor because I'm going to die anyways."
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Which requires customers to have perfect knowledge of the market to work. How so? It’s precisely because no one has perfect knowledge that markets beat central planning, as Hayek articulated in The Use of Knowledge in Society.
  - jtmcmc 8y ago
    when you have strong information asymmetry between purchaser and seller the market can become unsafe. These information asymmetries occur in highly specialized areas like...medicine where it is extremely difficult if not impossible for the consumer to be able to judge what is best. Which is why regulation is good and useful. It recognizes that we can not all be expert in all areas.
- sudomake 8y ago
  "After a few buildings and bridges fall down, the free market will punish those developers that built them"
howard941 8y ago
Milton Friedman [0], a brilliant man I disagreed with on almost everything, had an answer: Class action lawsuits. [0] In Free to Choose, required reading when I was an undergrad
antidesitter 8y ago
The strongly libertarian/anti-regulation folks really don’t seem to have an answer for this. No libertarian I know of opposes penalties for misbranding and false advertising (i.e. fraud). It seems like you’re attacking a strawman.

by erentz 8y ago

InitialLastName 8y ago

> Though I sometimes think there’s a contradiction there that if you do understand other humans you don’t tend to end up so far down the libertarian scale in the first place I've started to come to the conclusion that anyone who studies economics, systems, and political science more than they study psychology, sociology, and history is at dire risk of becoming a libertarian.

logfromblammo 8y ago
If you think you might be becoming a libertarian, just do a video search for "Chinese escalator", and cling as hard as you can to the necessity of building codes, regular inspections, insurance underwriting, and civil torts.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  I'll never be a libertarian; I think it's too important that humans have the ability to live their lives with dignity, and I'm fully aware of how infrequently that happens when government is limited.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    I'm fully aware of how infrequently that happens when government is limited. What do you mean?
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    I'm an anarchist; I think it's too important that humans have the ability to live their lives with dignity, and I'm fully aware of how infrequently that happens when anti-government is limited. Practical anarchist, though. Gratuitous rebellion for its own sake is counterproductive. It is necessary that humans come together in cooperation to accomplish goals otherwise impossible without cartels, to break the Nash equilibriums. But it is also necessary to dismantle and diffuse concentrations of power when they become destructive to their original aims. The more permanent an institution, the more inefficient and corruptible it can become as time passes. Corporations need to sometimes fail and be replaced by scrappy startups. Governments need to sometimes hand over power to a different political bloc. Religions need to sometimes have ideological schisms. Statues and monuments sometimes need to be taken down and warehoused. Perfectly good uniforms sometimes need to be replaced with different designs. Sometimes, the fortunes of the rich need to be squandered, stolen, or sunk. The impulse to rebel must be satisfied, and one would hope that it is possible without violent rebellion, but that is sometimes unavoidable, if the entrenched power structure in question proves unwilling to diminish itself peacefully. As it is now, my primary concerns are the increasing concentrations of wealth to fewer people, and consolidating ownership of communications media, broadcast and network channels, and intellectual property. These are self-reinforcing, and can lead to a runaway, much like increasing atmospheric CO2 can trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. The healthcare/health-insurance industry is a potential future threat, but it isn't yet too late for them to sort themselves out through rational analysis and discussion.
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      > As it is now, my primary concerns are the increasing concentrations of wealth to fewer people, and consolidating ownership of communications media, broadcast and network channels, and intellectual property. All of those issues, as far as I can tell, are actually a BIGGER problem in the various parts of the world (and of world history) with weaker state mechanisms, in terms of the ability of the largest portion of their populations to reach as far as possible up Maslow's heirarchy.

da_chicken 8y ago

> The strongly libertarian/anti-regulation folks really don’t seem to have an answer for this. And it’s where there whole philosophy falls down because it so fundamentally ignores human behavior so it’ll never work. Sure they do. "The invisible hand of the market"! Which requires customers to have perfect knowledge of the market to work. Somehow they can't fathom that someone who is willing to harm others in order to make a profit might also be willing to act dishonestly and commit fraud in order to make even more profit. The other argument is, "Well, it would happen anyways with regulation!" Which is true, but, just like the "bad regulation" and "regulatory capture" arguments, effectvely boils down to saying, "I don't need to go to the doctor because I'm going to die anyways."

antidesitter 8y ago
Which requires customers to have perfect knowledge of the market to work. How so? It’s precisely because no one has perfect knowledge that markets beat central planning, as Hayek articulated in The Use of Knowledge in Society.
- jtmcmc 8y ago
  when you have strong information asymmetry between purchaser and seller the market can become unsafe. These information asymmetries occur in highly specialized areas like...medicine where it is extremely difficult if not impossible for the consumer to be able to judge what is best. Which is why regulation is good and useful. It recognizes that we can not all be expert in all areas.
sudomake 8y ago
"After a few buildings and bridges fall down, the free market will punish those developers that built them"

howard941 8y ago

Milton Friedman [0], a brilliant man I disagreed with on almost everything, had an answer: Class action lawsuits. [0] In Free to Choose, required reading when I was an undergrad

antidesitter 8y ago

The strongly libertarian/anti-regulation folks really don’t seem to have an answer for this. No libertarian I know of opposes penalties for misbranding and false advertising (i.e. fraud). It seems like you’re attacking a strawman.