4 ms·

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 s

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
    Cant argue with that!
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  No, because hypothetically we just did a mark&sweep garbage collection. The FDA/DEA/etc do all sorts of things - failing to regulate antibiotics, preventing women from purchasing birth control without a doctor's permission, sending people to jail for possessing herbs, etc. If we nuke it all and recreate the important bits, it's a great way to eliminate everything we don't need.
jasallen 13y ago
Taken to its extreme (which it has been): (1) "normal cops" need specialists to enforce rules the average beat cop doesn't understand. (2) "normal laws" are vague, imprecise and take years of debate to clarify, so we have "ministers/secretaries/directors" empowered to nimbly and precisely interpret the broad laws. The specialists in the cops become their own sub-department. The ministers need a 'place'. Lo, why not put them together, and while we're at it, note this is very much a national 'common' problem, so lets have them all work at the federal level. Not saying I agree that it's the way it should be, but the reduction is inevitable. (For the record, they I think it should be is the FDA is needed, but its powers and practices need better alignment to its intended mission)

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
  Cant argue with that!
yummyfajitas 13y ago
No, because hypothetically we just did a mark&sweep garbage collection. The FDA/DEA/etc do all sorts of things - failing to regulate antibiotics, preventing women from purchasing birth control without a doctor's permission, sending people to jail for possessing herbs, etc. If we nuke it all and recreate the important bits, it's a great way to eliminate everything we don't need.

jasallen 13y ago

Taken to its extreme (which it has been): (1) "normal cops" need specialists to enforce rules the average beat cop doesn't understand. (2) "normal laws" are vague, imprecise and take years of debate to clarify, so we have "ministers/secretaries/directors" empowered to nimbly and precisely interpret the broad laws. The specialists in the cops become their own sub-department. The ministers need a 'place'. Lo, why not put them together, and while we're at it, note this is very much a national 'common' problem, so lets have them all work at the federal level. Not saying I agree that it's the way it should be, but the reduction is inevitable. (For the record, they I think it should be is the FDA is needed, but its powers and practices need better alignment to its intended mission)