The only way for libertarianism to work is if every human had only good intentions. Since that’s simply never going to happen libertarianism will never work. Just my opinion feel free to disagree.
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
Everyone loves freedom! Like the freedom to:
pay a child to work in a mine
schedule workers for 80+ hours a week
drive without speed limits
use as much water out of the local river as desired
dump waste into that same river
sell unregulated, untested medicine
So obviously there are “freedoms” that mainly serve to infringe on the actual freedoms of others. Those just happen to be the ones that libertarians don’t talk about so much but are really what they’re after.
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.
pay a child to work in a mine
I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.
schedule workers for 80+ hours a week
If one consents, then there should be no issue.
drive without speed limits
Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
use as much water out of the local river as desired
This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).
dump waste into that same river
This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.
sell unregulated, untested medicine
I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.
[source] Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1962 to require that new drugs be shown effective, as well as safe, to obtain FDA approval.
I appreciate your thorough response, but I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
But also. No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin. Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.
No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.
In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.
Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.
The only way for libertarianism to work is if every human had only good intentions. Since that’s simply never going to happen libertarianism will never work. Just my opinion feel free to disagree.
Libertarianism is a theory espoused to those with good intentions by people that have bad intentions.
It doesn’t work for almost anyone. But it super works for some. That’s the point.
You don’t believe that upholding, and maximising individual rights, and freedoms is a net positive?
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
Everyone loves freedom! Like the freedom to:
So obviously there are “freedoms” that mainly serve to infringe on the actual freedoms of others. Those just happen to be the ones that libertarians don’t talk about so much but are really what they’re after.
I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.
I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.
If one consents, then there should be no issue.
Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).
This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.
I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.
I appreciate your thorough response, but I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
But also. No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin. Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.
When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,
In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.
Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.