Intellectual consistency can be overrated

[mawilson 2,133]

Humans work better as individuals than within regulated communities? Point me in the direction of a country that does that successfully. America is not a nation of personally responsible rugged individuals who never need assistance, and never was - even the pioneers relied on neighbours and friends to succeed. This idea that every relationship is based on simple trade transactions and that everyone can have enough knowledge about every subject to make good decisions is total bull.

No-one is expected to know everything about every subject. People can always hire professionals

to make decisions for them - a simple trade transaction between you and the professional.

[Peikko 1,575]

No-one is expected to know everything about every subject. People can always hire professionals

to make decisions for them - a simple trade transaction between you and the professional.

Professionals never, ever give dud advice either and of course you can be sure you are getting the best advice the more you pay for it - and what the heck is a professional in libertarianland? They don't even think doctors should undergo training or be licensed to practice.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Professionals never, ever give dud advice either and of course you can be sure you are getting the best advice the more you pay for it - and what the heck is a professional in libertarianland? They don't even think doctors should undergo training or be licensed to practice.

and what? Government DOES give good advice? Please. There are no guarantees and some people will fail because they do not educate themselves and/or choose not so good professionals. So what?

The fear of failure will keep us smart. The absence of risk will make us dumb sheep. Sujects, not citizens.

[Peikko 1,575]

and what? Government DOES give good advice? Please. There are no guarantees and some people will fail because they do not educate themselves and/or choose not so good professionals. So what?

The fear of failure will keep us smart. The absence of risk will make us dumb sheep. Sujects, not citizens.

Government isn't in the advice business - it is in the business of affording protections and imposing restrictions - just as it should be. Even with regulation there is plenty of risk to go around - but allowing unmitigated risk because you don't like the idea of rules is pathetic.

[Heracles 417]

Government isn't in the advice business - it is in the business of affording protections and imposing restrictions - just as it should be. Even with regulation there is plenty of risk to go around - but allowing unmitigated risk because you don't like the idea of rules is pathetic.

Government is in the business of representing the people, advancing the country and should be in the business of ensuring an equal playing field for all; which usually comes in the form of rules and laws.

The thought that less rules is better is just silly. Rules and laws are what prevent Chernobyl, frequent recessions, exploitations, monopolies, duopolies, safety violations (miners deaths in WV) etc etc etc. Independent Federal Consumer protection agencies such as those in the UK, Canada or Australia prevent consumers from being exploited and strong-armed by large companies. The US has no such agency.

All libertarians have a knack of ignoring the success of those abroad, while picking those that have not worked to make their point. Also refuse to respond to why third world countries are the only people that have the exact same mindset - less government. It's common sense to realize that without rules or law and order, society naturally navigates (transforms) to King and Queen types of societies;, where a limited number of aristocrats have the majority of wealth in power. Something that can be seen in even the poorest of the poor countries.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Booyah!

[Texanadian 10]

Where to begin, where to begin....

Just about every law starts out with good intentions. The long term results are that the laws grow and turn into bad laws. Let's take environmental laws as a perfect example.

Every US car from 1975 and on has come from the factory with a catalytic converter. Cats don't work with leaded gas, so we got unleaded gas. The results being that cars are cleaner. This is good. On the other hand, it's illegal in California of all places, to put a catalytic converter on a pre 1975 car that didn't originally come with one. It's considered "tampering with the emissions system" and carries a large fine. A vehicle that originally came with a single exhaust system can't legally be converted to a dual exhaust system (federal law)....A dual exhaust system will give you better fuel economy....But it's legal for a car company to switch from a single exhaust system one year to a dual exhaust system the next year on the same car model.

Many states have emissions tests on cars on a yearly/bi-yearly basis. You would think a simple testing of the exhaust would determine if the car passes. But instead states also have visual inspections. So two identical cars can come in. One has an A.I.R. pump, the other one is removed. Even though the one without the pump may put out less pollution than the car that has the pump. The car without the pump will fail the visual even though it burns clean out the tailpipes. Why??? Why not a simple put the probe in the tailpipe and if it passes, it passes. Simple.

Laws stopped car companies from putting R-12 air conditioners in cars due to ozone layer worries. R-134a was the replacement chosen by lobbyists and government to convert old cars to. R-134a is incomptabile on the whole with R-12. The oils don't mix. You can't get all the old oil out. The performance is worse. And it's expensive to switch over. Lots of labor and new parts are needed. Future breakdowns are common after converting. (The newer oils used in 134a can't have all the moisture boiled out like the old oils used in R-12 systems. Thus you get corrosion and expensive repairs)

Propane air conditioners use a combination of propane and butane (or isobutane). The conversion is cheap. About $1 worth of refrigerant. (How much does 6 oz of propane cost? About the same as a Bic lighter) The oil is compatible. Nothing needs to be changed. Performance is as good if not better than R-12. And it's light years better than R-134a. It has essentially zero ozone or global warming problems... But it's illegal to convert an R-12 car to a propane based A/C system. Nevermind that it's legal in Canada, Australia, and much of Europe.

It's illegal to vent propane from a car. Legally it needs to be captured and recovered. But shops don't want to capture it because it wrecks their two capturing tanks (one for R-12, one for R-134a). But it's legal to light a propane BBQ with a butane lighter. A 2 lb R-12 car would have about 6 oz of propane in it if it were converted. It's illegal to vent R-134a to the air from your car. But those cans of dust off that you use to clean your computer have R-134a in them.

Many big cities have banned wood stoves. But wood stoves today are as clean and efficient as a natural gas or propane fireplace. And wood is a renewable resource that is carbon neutral. Nutural gas and propane aren't. Wood heat is also VERY cheap in comparison.

In an effort to clean the air, we have ethanol in gasoline. Ethanol gets worse gas mileage than non-ethanol treated gasoline. It's supposed to be "green" for the environment. Yet it's better for the environemnt to simply plant trees on land rather than grow corn to make ethanol. Ethanol is also expensive.

Let's get away from fuels and talk about cars themselves. A 1973 Honda Civic weighed 1500 lbs and got 40 mpg. It was a cheap car. A 2010 Honda Civic weighs 2700 lbs and gets 34 mpg. The government instituted a national 55 mph speed limit in the 1970's in order to save fuel. Automakers came up with a much better idea. More gears. The days of 3 (and even 2) speed automatics are gone. Ditto the 4 speed manual. 5 speeds and 6 speeds are common. Consumers wouldn't want the old lack of gear choice. The ratios are wider. The mileage is worse. It's noisier. When the Federal government made Montana institute a speed limit on their roads in the 1990's, the death rate among drivers went up. (prior to this, the Montana highway speed limit was "reasonable and prudent" during the daytime. No number was given)

Want to talk about illegal drugs and the troubles with them? Under our current system, it makes being a drug lord a very lucritive profession to be in. Supply is incredibly tight. Demand is high. Governments can't reduce demand. But they can and do cut down on supply. This only makes drugs more expensive. Why did crack become popular? Because the government worked to cut down the supply of cocaine. As a result of this, cocaine got more expensive. People switched to crack because it was cheaper. Why is there no huge underground market for tylenol, beer, or apples? Because there is a small profit margin in it. Since there is relatively little money to be made on it, it's not worth gangs risking their lives by killing other people in order to sell the product. There's simply too much competition.

The international drug rings make gobs of money. So it's easy for them to bribe police. It's also very hard for the average joe to become an international drug king pin. How are you going to get the product from one part of the world to another? If you're caught, you have nobody to plea bargain against. But the big drug king pin has a stack of names to name.

Why do prostitutes work the street? Why do people break and enter homes? The high cost of drugs. People who are addicted to cigarettes and spend $10 a day on it don't do this stuff. People who drink a bottle of vodka every day don't do this stuff. But people with $300/day coke habits do. Crime goes up when drug prices rise. What makes drug prices rise? The government sanctioned black markets.

But instead, we have the simple notion that banning a product in demand will make the demand disappear. Bars didn't vanish during prohibition. They simply went underground. Respect for the law went down as people didn't see the logic in banning it. Just as people don't see the logic in putting pot smokers in jail.

This is getting long, so I'll keep the financial stuff to a minimum. Federal bailouts of banks and car companies will NEVER be supported by Libertarians. The freedom to fail is equally as important as the freedom to succeed. There wouldn't be any Fanny and Freddie to fail because they wouldn't exist in the first place. No taxpayer should be made to pay to prop up an unsuccessful company.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Texanadian

[Texanadian 10]

Government is in the business of representing the people, advancing the country and should be in the business of ensuring an equal playing field for all; which usually comes in the form of rules and laws.

The thought that less rules is better is just silly. Rules and laws are what prevent Chernobyl, frequent recessions, exploitations, monopolies, duopolies, safety violations (miners deaths in WV) etc etc etc. Independent Federal Consumer protection agencies such as those in the UK, Canada or Australia prevent consumers from being exploited and strong-armed by large companies. The US has no such agency.

All libertarians have a knack of ignoring the success of those abroad, while picking those that have not worked to make their point. Also refuse to respond to why third world countries are the only people that have the exact same mindset - less government. It's common sense to realize that without rules or law and order, society naturally navigates (transforms) to King and Queen types of societies;, where a limited number of aristocrats have the majority of wealth in power. Something that can be seen in even the poorest of the poor countries.

Governments are in the business of representing the people who have the most power and influence. Doesn't matter if you're in a socialist country or a capitalist country. The only way they make fields level is by making it unlevel for others. The steel industry in the US wants tariffs to be put on foreign steel coming into the USA. What does this do?

1) It benefits the US steel companies.

2) It hurts American consumers who use products made from steel.

3) It also indirectly subsidizes foreign car companies by making it more expensive for domestic car companies to use steel.

Monopolies only exist due to governments. There is no monopoly on grocery stores. There is a monopoly on the post office. There is no monopoly on radio stations. In North Korea you won't find a radio station aside from the state owned station. You can own any mutual fund you want to. But you only have one choice when it comes to which Social Security program you want to join. The simple fact of the matter is that competition allows others to join in and try to outsell when one company has the majority of the consumer.

Kings and Queens? Under a Libertarian choice, there isn't any power or money to be owned by a King or Queen. There is nothing to seize or take control of.