4 ms·

As an extremist libertarian, one whom doesn't even want the FDA to exist in the first place, I can say that the failure of the FDA to control this outrageous ov

As an extremist libertarian, one whom doesn't even want the FDA to exist in the first place, I can say that the failure of the FDA to control this outrageous overuse of antibiotics is just insane. Even extremist libertarians think that the government should be able to exert its' powers in order to prevent contagion. This is a clear example of the government failing in one of its core responsibilities.

hobs 13y ago
Really? If you never wanted the FDA how could the government ever accomplish that feat? (which it currently isn't) Wouldn't an extremist libertarian say something related to the market sorting it out? I am genuinely interested in your opinion. (tragedy of the commons and all that)
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  There's no singular school of thought, but yes libertarians almost universally favor government prevention of contagion. It's also not unusual for us to favor some environmental regulations (though by no means approved by all of us!). Markets are only one facet of a healthy functioning society. You still need government and it's courts and law enforcement. Civil courts deal with the negative externalities (pollution, contagion, etc), not markets. There are of course myriad instances of humans banding together on their own to solve tragedy of the commons issues, without the courts or regulation, but of course in the US anti-trust laws would prevent such coordination as "cartel like behavior". But let's assume the "ultimate extreme libertarian society", in which even the air we breathe has been privatized. The air shareholders would still need to use the courts to enforce their ownership rights against polluters (a factory, for example). Without the authority of the court to back them up, the air shareholder would never be able to actually force the factory to pay for the right to pollute. The market helps ensure reasonably efficient allocation of air rights, but the courts (government) are still required to actually make the system function. And finally, to answer your first question: Why would you need an FDA to restrict antibiotic use in agriculture? Normal courts, cops, and laws can't do that?
  - mark_integerdsv 13y ago
    One needs to be very clear about US libertarian which is largely a conservative movement and libertarians in the rest of the world, who are largely considered left wing liberals and/or anarchists. The Tea Partiers of the world hijacked the term and repurposed it for their own weird definition, I think it was that lot at any rate.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      The viewpoints expressed above are straight mainline US libertarian points. 90% of US libertarians would agree in whole or part with what I said. I don't know of any left wing liberal libertarians anywhere in the world. The anarchist libertarians (called minarchists or anarcho capitalists typically) are probably more common in the US than outside of it. Some Tea Partiers actually are libertarians, many are not. As with everything, some people swing more left others more right. Everyone is different. But the points I presented in the previous posts are mainline libertarian points agreed upon by virtually all of them (us).
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - hobs 13y ago
    To your last point, I guess I would say that it seems like it would put a heavy burden on the police to regulate all activity that we would make illegal. Can you imagine a beat cop driving his car out to the farm to verify if illegal antibiotics were being used? The example is purposefully ridiculous, obviously. If we create a specialized arm of the police who specialize in things like air pollution, crops, etc, are we not just recreating the same government entities that are being railed against?
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      It'd be a lot easier than trying to prevent the entire human population from taking recreational drugs.

hobs 13y ago

Really? If you never wanted the FDA how could the government ever accomplish that feat? (which it currently isn't) Wouldn't an extremist libertarian say something related to the market sorting it out? I am genuinely interested in your opinion. (tragedy of the commons and all that)

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
There's no singular school of thought, but yes libertarians almost universally favor government prevention of contagion. It's also not unusual for us to favor some environmental regulations (though by no means approved by all of us!). Markets are only one facet of a healthy functioning society. You still need government and it's courts and law enforcement. Civil courts deal with the negative externalities (pollution, contagion, etc), not markets. There are of course myriad instances of humans banding together on their own to solve tragedy of the commons issues, without the courts or regulation, but of course in the US anti-trust laws would prevent such coordination as "cartel like behavior". But let's assume the "ultimate extreme libertarian society", in which even the air we breathe has been privatized. The air shareholders would still need to use the courts to enforce their ownership rights against polluters (a factory, for example). Without the authority of the court to back them up, the air shareholder would never be able to actually force the factory to pay for the right to pollute. The market helps ensure reasonably efficient allocation of air rights, but the courts (government) are still required to actually make the system function. And finally, to answer your first question: Why would you need an FDA to restrict antibiotic use in agriculture? Normal courts, cops, and laws can't do that?
- mark_integerdsv 13y ago
  One needs to be very clear about US libertarian which is largely a conservative movement and libertarians in the rest of the world, who are largely considered left wing liberals and/or anarchists. The Tea Partiers of the world hijacked the term and repurposed it for their own weird definition, I think it was that lot at any rate.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    The viewpoints expressed above are straight mainline US libertarian points. 90% of US libertarians would agree in whole or part with what I said. I don't know of any left wing liberal libertarians anywhere in the world. The anarchist libertarians (called minarchists or anarcho capitalists typically) are probably more common in the US than outside of it. Some Tea Partiers actually are libertarians, many are not. As with everything, some people swing more left others more right. Everyone is different. But the points I presented in the previous posts are mainline libertarian points agreed upon by virtually all of them (us).
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- hobs 13y ago
  To your last point, I guess I would say that it seems like it would put a heavy burden on the police to regulate all activity that we would make illegal. Can you imagine a beat cop driving his car out to the farm to verify if illegal antibiotics were being used? The example is purposefully ridiculous, obviously. If we create a specialized arm of the police who specialize in things like air pollution, crops, etc, are we not just recreating the same government entities that are being railed against?
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    It'd be a lot easier than trying to prevent the entire human population from taking recreational drugs.