33
34

The long war over marijuana legalization (ottawacitizen.com)

liftcannabis が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]george1234561 -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

What indeed would protect our food supply without the ever benevolent over sight of the government? Well, to begin with, the companies that sell food have a reputation to uphold. So they will deal only with trusted vendors, who produce good products, and if something spoils they throw it away because they don't want to suffer from a bad reputation on the marketplace. And of course, the consumer is capable of looking at the product they are buying and determining if it is okay or not. Certainly no one could ever sell me spoiled meat, because I look at what I buy.

Actually though, the vast majority of food which is sold today in Canada is not safe for human consumption. All the processed meats, sugary snacks and carbohydrates are quite deleterious to human health. Of course they should not be banned, if someone wants to poison themselves or grow obese on ice cream or bread that is their right.

The state is evil. The state commits acts of coercion and extortion constantly against innocents. All of the worst things in the history of the world have occurred because of one government or another. It is telling that you do not make an examples of these so called failures of libertarianism, just vague assertions that they exist. Prove your case, if you are able.

[–]OrzBlueFogNova Scotia 24ポイント25ポイント  (4子コメント)

What indeed would protect our food supply without the ever benevolent over sight of the government? Well, to begin with, the companies that sell food have a reputation to uphold. So they will deal only with trusted vendors, who produce good products, and if something spoils they throw it away because they don't want to suffer from a bad reputation on the marketplace.

Explain the vastly higher incidence of food safety issues in areas with low regulatory burdens, then.

Relying on the benevolence of private profit-seeking enterprises to be universally honest and transparent when such information negatively impacts their bottom line almost always ends in disaster - at least so long as there is no strong authority willing to investigate independently and punish transgressors.

And of course, the consumer is capable of looking at the product they are buying and determining if it is okay or not. Certainly no one could ever sell me spoiled meat, because I look at what I buy.

Not exactly the most scientific method there. Tell me, how would you spot melamine in milk?

Actually though, the vast majority of food which is sold today in Canada is not safe for human consumption. All the processed meats, sugary snacks and carbohydrates are quite deleterious to human health. Of course they should not be banned, if someone wants to poison themselves or grow obese on ice cream or bread that is their right.

They should at least trust that the label is accurate and some faith in the food safety regime to protect them.

The state is evil. The state commits acts of coercion and extortion constantly against innocents.

The 'state' is just a tool, and in a healthy democracy one beholden to the will of the majority of its people. All the ills you ascribe to unchecked states are equally committed by any group seeking to exert power to their own benefit, whether they fly a national flag, corporate banner, or holy symbols.

All of the worst things in the history of the world have occurred because of one government or another.

That is an absurd oversimplification of history. Seek the places in this world with no functioning government and tell me of the paradises you find.

It is telling that you do not make an examples of these so called failures of libertarianism, just vague assertions that they exist. Prove your case, if you are able.

That every failed state in history results in violence and privation instead of the people discovering the bounty of untold liberty should be evidence enough.

Libertarianism is an unproven, untested fringe theory. If you want to implement it in the real world the burden is on you to prove its merits. The onus is always on those advocating change, especially when the status quo is the pinnacle of personal freedom and safety in the sum of human history.

Thus far all libertarians have done is rail against the iniquities of modern life without offering any rationale as to why their way is better. Until you can put forward a convincing case and not just accusatory anger your movement will be relegated to the fringes alongside communists, anarchists, and anti-technological agrarianists.

[–]george1234561 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's a myth that regulations are imposed upon callous corporations as a response to inadequate quality. The impetus behind the regulation during progressive era was lobbying on behalf of established business interests to impose high fixed costs which crush their smaller competitors. If you have a firm of 500 men it is far easier to spare one 1 man to sit in an office filling out forms than if you are running a small 3 man operation. Regulations are a way for big business to rig the game in their favour.

Successful businesses are almost inevitably transparent and honest because they can't risk alienating the customer. The only way you make profits in a market economy is by giving consumers what they desire. Let's say that a store routinely sells vegetables and meat that have gone bad. Who is going to continue to shop there? Quality as well as price are two factors that consumers shop on, and if a store consistently underperforms other stores in these metrics they will go broke. That's the beauty of the market economy, there is a creative destruction wherein firms which cannot satisfy consumer demand go bankrupt and their capital is acquired by business which can. But there is a real disconnect in the etatist position. According to you, consumers are some how too stupid to tend to their own economic affairs and need the ever benevolent state to look after them, and yet these exact same consumers are some how imbued with near magical powers at the ballot box in analyzing the various proposals of the different politicians and selecting the right one. But people are much better suited to make the right decisions in the market place, where there is an immediate feedback to whether or not a trade benefits them, but one needs to be an expert in economics and politics to trace the very convoluted path of policies proposed and their impact on the voter and the country more broadly.

The state is not simply an organization like any other in society, for it is the state which claims the right to initiate force against individuals. Certainly you must concede that if I were to threaten you with violence in order to get your money that I would be evil. It is wrong to mug people. Robbery is wrong. Extortion is wrong. But a basic moral principle is universality. For one to act is to give permission for all to act. If it is wrong for me to extort, then it is wrong for you to extort, and it is wrong for all individuals and all organizations to extort. But extortion is the state's primary revenue stream, for if you do not pay your taxes then the state will quite certainly throw you in jail. Further, if you defend yourself from this aggression, the police will kill you. Therefor, etatists claim the right to murder you if you do not give up your money to the government.

[–]OrzBlueFogNova Scotia 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's a myth that regulations are imposed upon callous corporations as a response to inadequate quality. The impetus behind the regulation during progressive era was lobbying on behalf of established business interests to impose high fixed costs which crush their smaller competitors. If you have a firm of 500 men it is far easier to spare one 1 man to sit in an office filling out forms than if you are running a small 3 man operation. Regulations are a way for big business to rig the game in their favour.

Absolute nonsense. Unregulated business does not default to a state of shining behaviour and upstanding citizenship - quality declines, secrecy abounds, bribery and extortion skyrocket, and truly abhorrent behaviour emerges. Looks at how mining firms behave in third-world countries - they have more power than governments, unions are impotent to non-existent, and the result? Poor working conditions, suppression of human rights, and outright bloody atrocities.

Successful businesses are almost inevitably transparent and honest because they can't risk alienating the customer.

Right. Show me the transparency that led to Exxon suppressing climate change data for 40 years. That kept the health effects of cigarettes silenced. That kept lead in gasoline long after its disastrous health consequences were known. That led to the deformities of thalidomide. The examples are endless of successful businesses wilfully endangering the public so long as they believe they can get away with it.

The only way you make profits in a market economy is by giving consumers what they desire. Let's say that a store routinely sells vegetables and meat that have gone bad. Who is going to continue to shop there?

A hyper-simplistic example that ignores what happens in the real world when the threat of oversight and consequence is removed from any organization incentivized to maximize profit.

Quality as well as price are two factors that consumers shop on, and if a store consistently underperforms other stores in these metrics they will go broke. That's the beauty of the market economy, there is a creative destruction wherein firms which cannot satisfy consumer demand go bankrupt and their capital is acquired by business which can. But there is a real disconnect in the etatist position. According to you, consumers are some how too stupid to tend to their own economic affairs and need the ever benevolent state to look after them, and yet these exact same consumers are some how imbued with near magical powers at the ballot box in analyzing the various proposals of the different politicians and selecting the right one.

Consumers are too stupid to know what makes every product they buy safe. Would we have seatbelt laws in a libertarian state? Mandatory helmets on motorcycles? Safe electronics? No harmful - but undetectable to the ordinary person - substitutes in food?

Do we rely on the magical superior morality of The Businessman to assure us of our well-being? No, because the examples of history of how deadly that folly is are legion.

But people are much better suited to make the right decisions in the market place, where there is an immediate feedback to whether or not a trade benefits them, but one needs to be an expert in economics and politics to trace the very convoluted path of policies proposed and their impact on the voter and the country more broadly.

Individuals are completely unequipped to make these decisions. They lack the expertise to tell if this brand of acetaminophen has been prepared to the same quality standard as its competitor. Consumer trust is completely dependent on the proven track record of regulatory oversight to investigate, correct, and prosecute. In a libertarian world this would be lost in very, very short order, with massive negative economic consequences.

The state is not simply an organization like any other in society, for it is the state which claims the right to initiate force against individuals. Certainly you must concede that if I were to threaten you with violence in order to get your money that I would be evil. It is wrong to mug people. Robbery is wrong. Extortion is wrong. But a basic moral principle is universality. For one to act is to give permission for all to act. If it is wrong for me to extort, then it is wrong for you to extort, and it is wrong for all individuals and all organizations to extort. But extortion is the state's primary revenue stream, for if you do not pay your taxes then the state will quite certainly throw you in jail. Further, if you defend yourself from this aggression, the police will kill you. Therefor, etatists claim the right to murder you if you do not give up your money to the government.

The conceit of libertarianism - the single-enemy philosophy. In this it is no different than communism or fascism, hyper-simplistic philosophies that ignore the complexities of the real world. If only we defeat the One True Enemy, salvation will be at hand! All will sort itself out after we stand victorious over our foe. All the past examples of the wrongdoings of profit-seekers will melt before the warmth of the new era.

History is not on your side. The few states that have embraced philosophies closest to libertarianism have been kleptocratic, economically disastrous, and in many cases outright murderous bloodbaths.

Pre-New Deal America featured robber barons, slavery, and bloody suppression of any rights movements. Post-Regan America features skyrocketing inequality with the destructive rise of influence of libertarians, creating the dysfunction they rail against to bolster their own empty arguments.

Immediately post-Communist Russia is another fine example of the failings of libertarianism, where a pathetically weak state was overrun by oligarchies, murder, and near-mob rule - all of which destroyed the economy. No wonder they fled to the tender arms of authoritarianism under Putin.

How about the work of Friedman's protégés, the abhorrent dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile? Privatized social security, outlawed unions, and other libertarian fantasies crippled the economy, send poverty skyrocketing, and led to bloody murder.

Or how about the closest thing to libertarianism we have in Canada? Strong private enterprise with minimal government interference and little union opposition. New Brunswick under the Irvings is Canada's economic basket case, its home base of Saint John a near-destitute city on the brink of fiscal collapse.

Libertarians hand-wave all of these away as 'not true libertarianism'. I expect no different now. Until you own up to the failings of this ideology it will rightly remain on the fringe of dangerous theory that deserves no better a reputation than communism.