"I have a personal issue with libertarians in that some (to not cast a generalized glance) advocate a society driven by a profit-motive, but a lot of things that act toward the benefit of society go against the profit motive. Testing your food, stickers with expiration dates, very rigorous safety measures, all of these cost money and yet in a society without safety laws, these people are expected to still follow these procedures that cost them a lot of money? This didn't happen in history, and I don't know why it would happen if all regulations were removed. That's my one gripe, and I'd like to not focus on it as much to just address the issues I'm about to bring up."
While I am certain you can find someone who calls themselves a libertarian and believes just about anything short of state socialism, this is not an accurate characterization of general libertarian thought.
First off, to a libertarian profit is measured in more than dollars and cents, it is far too individualist of a theory to consider such a narrow definition of benefits. So yes, we do advocate a focus on the profit motive, however we recognize and encourage each individual to make their own definition of what profit means. The idea is as long as you aren't hurting anyone else go do what makes you happiest, if that is earning boatloads of money then do that, if it is earning the love of a beautiful woman/man go do that, if it is raising a large family go do that, whatever it is that makes you happiest is where your profit is so go maximize it. Just leave everyone else alone to do the same.
"To that degree, we discuss under the premise that it should be illegal to lie to your consumers."
Yes, absolutely, this is called fraud.
"How do you keep an industry from lying to its clients? That is one of my first questions. One way is through government regulation."
How do you keep someone from lying? You can't. One might as well ask how do you keep someone from thinking about sex. Humanity is not perfect and never will be and there will always be those willing to hurt others to advance their own position.
So already your premise is flawed because government regulation cannot prevent an industry from lying to it's customers, at best it can do is to punish them when they get caught doing it.
Further as you indicate, this is just 1 mechanism for ensuring that people have accurate information about the products they buy, there are other possible mechanisms as well. Anything from investigative journalists, to Consumer watchdog groups, to private certification agencies such as Consumer reports, the CSA and Underwriters Laboratories can be used in place of government regulation and when combined with a strict liability legal system achieve at least the same if not better results than the government solution, all without introducing the evils of regulatory capture or creating a class of unaccountable power hungry regulators.
You have as of yet not shown any evidence why the government solution might be superior.
" In the Heinz example, they started out by advertising the product as being pure while the others used rotten tomatoes, but people still continued buying rancid ketchup. Despite having all the information, market forces continued to favor the cheaper, tainted food. Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances. "
Um, wait who says their decisions were not rational. How many people were killed by eating this "tainted" ketchup? How many even made sick? Then what was the price difference between the "pure" Heinz and the tainted competitors? Their decisions may have been entirely rational. You have not presented any evidence that it was an irrational decision, you just asserted that it was based on your own prejudices.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 17:19 (UTC)While I am certain you can find someone who calls themselves a libertarian and believes just about anything short of state socialism, this is not an accurate characterization of general libertarian thought.
First off, to a libertarian profit is measured in more than dollars and cents, it is far too individualist of a theory to consider such a narrow definition of benefits. So yes, we do advocate a focus on the profit motive, however we recognize and encourage each individual to make their own definition of what profit means. The idea is as long as you aren't hurting anyone else go do what makes you happiest, if that is earning boatloads of money then do that, if it is earning the love of a beautiful woman/man go do that, if it is raising a large family go do that, whatever it is that makes you happiest is where your profit is so go maximize it. Just leave everyone else alone to do the same.
"To that degree, we discuss under the premise that it should be illegal to lie to your consumers."
Yes, absolutely, this is called fraud.
"How do you keep an industry from lying to its clients? That is one of my first questions. One way is through government regulation."
How do you keep someone from lying? You can't. One might as well ask how do you keep someone from thinking about sex. Humanity is not perfect and never will be and there will always be those willing to hurt others to advance their own position.
So already your premise is flawed because government regulation cannot prevent an industry from lying to it's customers, at best it can do is to punish them when they get caught doing it.
Further as you indicate, this is just 1 mechanism for ensuring that people have accurate information about the products they buy, there are other possible mechanisms as well. Anything from investigative journalists, to Consumer watchdog groups, to private certification agencies such as Consumer reports, the CSA and Underwriters Laboratories can be used in place of government regulation and when combined with a strict liability legal system achieve at least the same if not better results than the government solution, all without introducing the evils of regulatory capture or creating a class of unaccountable power hungry regulators.
You have as of yet not shown any evidence why the government solution might be superior.
"
In the Heinz example, they started out by advertising the product as being pure while the others used rotten tomatoes, but people still continued buying rancid ketchup. Despite having all the information, market forces continued to favor the cheaper, tainted food. Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances. "
Um, wait who says their decisions were not rational. How many people were killed by eating this "tainted" ketchup? How many even made sick? Then what was the price difference between the "pure" Heinz and the tainted competitors? Their decisions may have been entirely rational. You have not presented any evidence that it was an irrational decision, you just asserted that it was based on your own prejudices.