libertarian paradise

Post Reply New Topic

Go to India, get a car and try driving, you will experience how things look like when government isn't regulating anything.

The most horrific crimes ever committed have been committed by big government.

Well I lean libertarian and want a smaller Federal government.

Yet I also think a lot of the power to create domestic regulations should go to the states and the governors. The states created the Federal government and I don't think it was intended to usurp so much state power.

So for example someone mentioned regulating the roads. No I don't think that is the job of the Federal government. That authority belongs to State Legislatures and Governors. If back in the day Nevada wanted to remove speed restrictions on long desert highways that should be under their authority.

As for people rights hasn't the Federal Government often been the enemy as well when you look at the long struggle of Labor Unions? It seemed like they would chose the side of their corporate campaign backers and try to break strikes.

I think most domestic power should be local to the people it's governing.

You mean by authoritarian big governments. There are plenty of so-called big governments that don't oppress their citizens, unless you count "you don't get to exploit und underpay your workers or poison the environment" as oppression.

Btw, I would put this on the list of the most horrific crimes ever committed:



Those are the victims of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, who were forced to jump to their deaths as the result of insufficient government regulation and unbridled capitalism.

The Bhopal gas tragedy is another point for the list, and another example of what happens when you let the market and industry regulate themselves:

I'll never understand why self-styled leftists always equate libertarianism with giving carte blanche to the wealthy elite to do whatever they want with impunity.

Guess they've never heard of the Non-Agression Principle.

Edited to Add: Also, have they ever entertained the possibility that, through their relationship with the state, the wealthy elite perpetuate the abuse of those of lesser means?

What good are "regulations" when you essentially have the foxes guarding the chickens?

Where exactly would the non-aggression principle come in in case of the Bhopal disaster? Would the company be punished for killing nearly 3,800 people after the incident? Or would you rather legislate work safety regulations (danger! Big government!) to prevent something like this from happening in the first place?



I don't see that happening where I live. I think the trick is not to legalize bribery in form of massive corporate campaign contributions.

Short answer, yes. They would've been required to pay compensatory damages in the form of tort claims just as they have already done. Do your homework.



There were safety regulations and engineering standards already in place, and they were largely ignored. What do you propose? Assigning a government-appointed babysitter to each and every manufacturing plant in the world?



Well, at least you grasp the hazards of that... Unfortunately, when you have nanny state acting as protector of the public, you're going to risk that happening. Why else would a former Monsanto Corporation lobbyist now be the effective head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration? Mind you, this is the same FDA who was asleep as the wheel during the SB Pharmco Puerto Rico debacle.

Knee-jerk responses like "we need more government regulation" do nothing to address the factors that lead up to disasters like UCIL, especially when you take into consideration the fact that the company was in part publicly owned by the government of India.

Again, do your homework.

Last edited by CoMF on 13 Feb 2012, 3:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Money is power. People who have more money have more power. They don't need to use the state as a tool, but they'll use it if it's available. If the state is tiny, they'll just use their power more directly.

The core of leftism isn't big government. The core of leftism is to reduce the power of the people who have most of the power. Government can help us to do this.

But doesn't such a statement diminish the signifigance of "common" people like you and me?

As bad as those are, I'd take those unfortunate accidents over the deliberate slaughter of millions. I won't bother posting pictures, you can visit those death camps made by your country and see for yourself.

wrt. 'compensation' for the Bhopal tragedy (note that the victims themselves cannot possibly receive any compensation, as they are dead):
Dow has wriggled and weasled at every step to get out of compensating the victims of the tragedy adequately.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... al-victims

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011 ... ion-48.asp
quote:

Maybe they'll just wait for him to die too, eh?
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

when Chinese industrialists put melamine in dog and cat food, it caused the deaths of hundreds of animals... and yet, the next year, industrialists in the same country put melamine into baby formula. It killed or caused the hospitalization of hundreds of human infants, in a country where people are only allowed to have one child. Do you think those parents were comforted by the fact that some of the industrialists subsequently were executed or imprisoned, or do you think that they wish there was enough government oversight to have prevented their children's pain, organ failure, and/or deaths?

Liberals regulate before children die; libertarians compensate (inadequately) afterward, IF the victims have enough social, political, and/or economic clout, and IF there's a public hue and cry.

Numerically, deaths caused in war - even in the holocaust - pale beside the everyday attrition of poverty, poor health care, inadequate sanitation, lack of clean water, deliberate industrial environmental pollution, and starvation.

Indeed - some mild libertatrians just want a smaller welfare state, but they don't want to abolish it completely. They just want it to be far more effective for those that do need help and assistance.

It's correct to say that libertarianism is extremely broad, and many libertarians would be completely alienated by other kinds of libertarianism.

as would I

5/6ths of the world is alive today thanks to the chemical industry, and it has a surprisingly high safety record. far better than the early death associated with many other basic industries your standard of living depends on.
The fact of the matter is, China, India and the like find the risk (of letting big buisness in, 14 hour days labor, etc, etc) To Be Acceptable.
Americans find the fact that their women hit puberty at age 12 thanks to hormones in the food to be acceptable. its the same thing, just different orders of magnitude.

Government causes their fair share of that as well.

And how is that any different from punishing wrongdoers after the fact under the current regulatory system? It's not like you have a government-appointed nanny overseeing every single industry to ensure it doesn't misbehave.

Like it or not, no amount of laws are going to dissuade bad people from doing bad things. They either hide it, find ways around it through loopholes, or get in bed with the government you believe is supposed to be "protecting" you.

This is why we have civil courts and torts to ensure that victims receive compensatory damages. You can't legislate morality or social responsibility.