RE: Republicans Represent the People
April 3, 2011 at 4:30 pm
(April 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 1) Not every single piece of food is tested by the government before we eat it. You could be eating pencil shavings now and you wouldn't know it unless you did your own tests.
True, but in a libertarian model the government will do nothing to remedy the situation. Apparently the "free market" is supposed to use their buying power to punish this offence, but a Libertarian model allows monopolies, which means it is a win win situation for the perps, because the libertarian govt would protect their intellectual property and not allow others to offer a better quality item. In other words, the libertarian govt will protect the corporations contracts as opposed to the health of the masses.
(April 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 2) Just because the government wouldn't be testing food doesn't mean that other private institutions wouldn't either. In the Computer industry, there are many private regulatory bodies that build up a presence and charge for people to get certified with them. For instance, in computer security, CAP, SSCP and CISSP are all certificates issued by a private authority: (ISC)2.
Of course the occasional private citizen will find the funds to test the products of others, and some will create companies. But who regulates them? Not the government. They can lie all they want. The libertarian government will stand behind contracts first, evidence second. If someone has the money then it doesnt matter what these "watchdogs" say, as they will not be able to shut down the harmful corporation and such a monopolised corporation can spend mass amounts of money to drown out the truth. I also thought that a private authority is a fallacy, making arguments from authority. Wouldnt it be more logical to have a social regulatory where people of opposing view points can both be in power to keep each other in check? Conflict may not be the most efficient approach, but it is a good approach to checks and balances.
(April 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: There is no reason why this wouldn't also be true for the food industry if the government stepped back from regulating and spent more time policing. It's the rule of the market; if there is a demand for something, it'll appear pretty quickly.
Wait..I thought regulating and policing were the same thing? What good is regulating without policing, and vice versa. That makes no sense to me. If you know your history, then tell me what happened in the deregulated market of post American civil war southern states? Look up "carpet bagger".
