4 ms·

Congratulations, you're seeing the results of capitalism and libertarianism in action. It's more profitable to cut safety and government obviously shouldn't ste

Congratulations, you're seeing the results of capitalism and libertarianism in action. It's more profitable to cut safety and government obviously shouldn't step in to mandate it, as that would be too much intervention in the market, no?

boredumb 4y ago
The current government was a major party in pushing back on the rail worker strike last year. These are the effects of bureaucracy and big government.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  Both/and. It's a product of neoliberalism, the philosophy that policy-making should happen on the market, and the government's purpose is to protect those markets from any non-market activities (like unionization). You can argue that "real" free market libertarianism wouldn't prevent strikes, but I think most right minarchists would agree that breaking strikes falls under protection of property rights.
- uhtred 4y ago
  No, they are the effects of neolibral politics since Reagan: cut regulations and allow the free market to fly free. Yes the current administration squashed the rail workers strike, but governments only act in a way they feel will get them the most votes. The US public, with their moronic obsession with communism, are to blame for anything their politicians do. They voted them in.
- fnimick 4y ago
  Yes, because a rail strike would have sent the economy into a depression. You think that's what the public wants? The government is a representation of the public and we get exactly what we voted for. You should also note that one party in government voted to give the workers what they wanted, which would have removed the need for a strike in the first place, only to be blocked by the other party. Not all are equally to blame here.
butlerm 4y ago
In a case like this effective regulation is much more practical, and many libertarians would agree. The purists maintain that the legal liability that should follow an accident like this should be sufficient incentive to cause railroad companies to self regulate to avoid it. That seems either not to be the case or railroad companies like this one are not subject to enough liability to deter them from taking excessive risks.
- anotherman554 4y ago
  "In a case like this effective regulation is much more practical, and many libertarians would agree. " I've never seen a libertarian on the internet support a regulation.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    The loudest and most obnoxious of them also tend to be the most extreme. Those with a more nuanced view tend to avoid the label over time as there's no good way to use it to express a desire for less authoritarian government while also rejecting the views of the loud mouth extreme. And perhaps that's a good thing as it gets those with a more moderate view to try to work on those changes that are viable instead of demanding the theoretical perfect.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  The problem I have with the liability theory is that you can't undo dead with any amount of money and it's easily possible to create a liability far in excess of what the person or economic entity can ever cover. Plus, not everyone is able to accurately estimate their potential liability for an action, which also can end up creating a liability far in excess of both what they're able to compensate and beyond what they ever conceived to be possible.

boredumb 4y ago

The current government was a major party in pushing back on the rail worker strike last year. These are the effects of bureaucracy and big government.

NoGravitas 4y ago
Both/and. It's a product of neoliberalism, the philosophy that policy-making should happen on the market, and the government's purpose is to protect those markets from any non-market activities (like unionization). You can argue that "real" free market libertarianism wouldn't prevent strikes, but I think most right minarchists would agree that breaking strikes falls under protection of property rights.
uhtred 4y ago
No, they are the effects of neolibral politics since Reagan: cut regulations and allow the free market to fly free. Yes the current administration squashed the rail workers strike, but governments only act in a way they feel will get them the most votes. The US public, with their moronic obsession with communism, are to blame for anything their politicians do. They voted them in.
fnimick 4y ago
Yes, because a rail strike would have sent the economy into a depression. You think that's what the public wants? The government is a representation of the public and we get exactly what we voted for. You should also note that one party in government voted to give the workers what they wanted, which would have removed the need for a strike in the first place, only to be blocked by the other party. Not all are equally to blame here.

butlerm 4y ago

In a case like this effective regulation is much more practical, and many libertarians would agree. The purists maintain that the legal liability that should follow an accident like this should be sufficient incentive to cause railroad companies to self regulate to avoid it. That seems either not to be the case or railroad companies like this one are not subject to enough liability to deter them from taking excessive risks.

anotherman554 4y ago
"In a case like this effective regulation is much more practical, and many libertarians would agree. " I've never seen a libertarian on the internet support a regulation.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  The loudest and most obnoxious of them also tend to be the most extreme. Those with a more nuanced view tend to avoid the label over time as there's no good way to use it to express a desire for less authoritarian government while also rejecting the views of the loud mouth extreme. And perhaps that's a good thing as it gets those with a more moderate view to try to work on those changes that are viable instead of demanding the theoretical perfect.
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
The problem I have with the liability theory is that you can't undo dead with any amount of money and it's easily possible to create a liability far in excess of what the person or economic entity can ever cover. Plus, not everyone is able to accurately estimate their potential liability for an action, which also can end up creating a liability far in excess of both what they're able to compensate and beyond what they ever conceived to be possible.