Is it George's Turn?
Jul. 23rd, 2004 09:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arisbeTo win the popular vote -- and lose the election?
This may be the map worth following.
Though it doesn't take into account the Libertarian spoiler effect. Yet.
This may be the map worth following.
Though it doesn't take into account the Libertarian spoiler effect. Yet.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:23 am (UTC)Oh, let's hope!!
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:20 pm (UTC)One wonders: who would Osama rather see elected, Kerry or Bush? I rather imagine it is Bush, as strange as that may seem.
I am not the least bit excited by Kerry, let me make that very clear. At the same time, I do not feel as sick about him as I did previously about Dukakis and Clinton. Whether I will vote for him remains to be seen. Indiana is a so-called "safe" state, so voting for Nader, or the Green Party candidate, or the Libertarian, or anyone else, for that matter, will not hurt Kerry here.
If Bush is reelected, my return to Ireland will happen about 5 years sooner than originally planned...
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:29 am (UTC)But do you suppose the GOP will take notice if they lose a substantial portion of their conservative base to Badnarik and/or Peroutka? I'm thinking not.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 06:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 03:06 pm (UTC)Even if a terror attack occurs near the election.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 08:12 am (UTC)(Serious question - I've honestly no clue)
I suppose news reports only talk about Nader because he's controversial and some attribute parts of the 2000 outcome to him.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 09:01 am (UTC)As such, we don't know if he is "taking" votes from Bush, Kerry, other third party candidates, or no one at all. Taking, of course, is the wrong word - those votes didn't belong to anyone in the first place, anymore than I own my job (i.e., no one could "take" my job. They could replace me at my job, however).
Limited government has traditionally been a conservative/libertarian viewpoint, although I like to hope that eventually, liberals will embrace this point of view also.
As Harry Browne pointed out a few months ago:
You can't have a big government that redistributes the wealth without a big government that restricts peoples' civil liberties and tries to remake the entire world. But you can have a society that constantly improves opportunities for everyone without resorting to force.
When liberals join with libertarians to provide non-coercive methods for social progress, we will get the better world that liberals want. [ link ]
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 09:08 am (UTC)*if you care, my jettisoning the Republican-conservative viewpoint was the cause, not the premise of being "a Republican who wants to smoke pot or pay less taxes." I think the unfortunate influx of this sort is souring potential liberal interest in the LP/libertarian cause to a degree, combined with the rising prominence of Randroids.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 09:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 03:00 pm (UTC)Maybe that's because I'm mistaken about what small-l-libertarianism is. I thought it was based on the idea that the only legitimate acts of government were those to prevent "force and fraud". Corrections?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 04:41 pm (UTC)Part 1
Date: 2004-07-26 05:03 pm (UTC)Lots of stuff, usually having to do with eliminating regulatory bodies which exist precisely to protect people from force and fraud.
For a great example, on Badnarik's site, check out his rant against the FDA. Now, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the FDA, but I don't think I've ever seen such specious logic before as in Badnarik's argument that preventing vitamin manufacturers from advertising an unproven benefit was somehow the moral equivalent of the thalidomide disaster. Nothing stopped pregnant women from taking the vitamin suppliment if they wanted to; they were not prevented from finding out that the trials were underway, and the compound was freely available OTC. Heaven knows, my doctors have told me of chemical compounds which were undergoing trials and had not yet been proven to work, with the understanding it was my choice to gamble with my health as I saw fit.
The FDA function of which Badnarik is complaining is nothing other than that the FDA has set standards of truthfulness and anyone who wishes to make claims about their product must meet those standards, because to do advertise unproven claims of product benefits would be fraud. ("Duh!") That is what fraud it.
There's probably lots of reasonable grounds on which to object to the FDA. That isn't one of them.
Similarly, I have oft heard Libertarians complain that there's "too much regulation" and argue "regulation should be reduced". But for some reason (she said with a knowing look) they never actually specify which regulations they mean to abolish.
Now, I know a thing or two about regulations. I temped once in a real honest-to-gosh government regulatory body. Once upon a time, I was a student of Civil Engineering intending to specialize in Building Construction, and as such I had to study building codes (oy.) I've had to learn a bit about OSHA.
If someone wants to propose that a specific regulation, group of regulations, or regulatory body should be abolish, well, then, I can sit down and examine the merits and detriments of that particular entity, and come to a decision about whether or not it would be good for the republic and within the parameters of limiting government to preventing force and fraud.
But so long as it's the vaguely nebulous "regulations"... which regulations to the have in mind? The ones that prevent architects from erecting death traps (fraud, since the client relies upon the architect to do no such thing, and the users of the building likewise)? The ones that prevent grocers from using false scales to rip off consumers (fraud, and one of the oldest market regulations in history)? The ones that prevent electric companies from billing twice for the same electrons (fraud)?
[Continued]
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-07-26 07:03 pm (UTC)I agree that advertising an unproven benefit is wrong. I don't think it needs to be illegal - would you buy a product whose seller hasn't convinced you of its worthiness? Do you think the seller and government are the only two entities who can test products?
When I built my current computer, I purchased components based on several factors, including recommendations from friends who are know more about such things, the reputation of companies selling products, and a magazine that specializes in writing on such topics.
I don't think you need a seperate law (much less agency) for it in the specific case of medicines.
You said:
There's probably lots of reasonable grounds on which to object to the FDA. That isn't one of them.
If Badnarik's argument is as you said, it is certainly ill-formed. Do you have a link?
You list some further examples of "regulations":
The ones that prevent architects from erecting death traps (fraud, since the client relies upon the architect to do no such thing, and the users of the building likewise)?
I can't imagine that someone would build without safety codes, even absent a law to force him or her to do so. Do you think that those asking for a building to be built wouldn't have a clause in the contract requiring it to be inspected by an agreed-upon third party of their choice? Do you really want to set it up so that the only third-party that can inspect it is a monopoly?
The ones that prevent grocers from using false scales to rip off consumers (fraud, and one of the oldest market regulations in history)?
I suspect this would work much like above - why couldn't companies sell the service, to grocers, of certifying that their scales are accurate? They'd probably sell their approval, contingent that a) the scales are accurate, which they would inspect in the same fashion that insurance companies do, and b) they are permitted to do surprise inspections of it. Provided the grocer met their approval, they'd be permitted to display "certified by X" on the scales (note that saying "certified by X" when X did not, in fact, certify it, is covered by fraud absent this grocer regulation).
Alternately, a small neighborhood grocer might be trusted by his neighbors, and have no use for such an agency - if I ask my roommate to bring me a pound of apples from the grocery store, and I pay him for them, I don't need him to weigh the apples in front of me to demonstrate that they are, in fact, a pound.
In either case, why would you want the use of this regulatory agency to be required by law? If you don't trust a grocer on his word, don't shop there until someone can vouch for him. O suspect most of the world doesn't trust strangers off the bat, and most stores would probably opt for hiring one of the companies to inspect. Do you really trust a monopolist, unchecked by competition, vouching for them?
The ones that prevent electric companies from billing twice for the same electrons (fraud)?
Do we need a law to make sure that I'm not charged twice for the same candy bar at the supermarket? If they charge you twice, it's fraud - we don't need a seperate agency for them. If they charge for undelivered electricity, they haven't fulfilled their end of the contract, and you already aren't obligated to pay.
I think the problem is too much regulation by a monopolist unchecked by competition, and not enough of the trustworthy regulation we get from a free market.
More in response to your next post.
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-07-26 07:47 pm (UTC)Here you are:
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/RxDrugPrices.php
I agree that advertising an unproven benefit is wrong. I don't think it needs to be illegal
Then you don't think the government should prevent force and fraud? Why, then, do you call yourself a libertarian, instead of, say, an anarchist? Or are you a anarcholibertarian?
At any rate, you've mistaken me for someone interested in defending or advancing political positions. I haven't the slightest interest in convincing you from your opinions; they're yours, you think about them. I already have. I wrote in response to the question of how I perceive the big-l-libertarians -- on which I commented as simply a datapoint in the prior discussion of the likelihood of a right-wing spoiler effect (to whit that I thought it unlikely that Badnarik will draw from the left) -- not because I had the slightest desire to discuss their merits or lack thereof.
Put it another way: You inquired after my perspective, and so I shared it with you. I may be interested to hear your perspective (or not -- honestly, I've heard it before and would only be being polite) but I'm certainly not about to quarrel with you about such things in someone else's journal. That seems tacky.
Frankly, I think it quite rude of you to inquire after my position and then argue with it. I indulged your curiosity and instead of saying "thank you" for the favor I did you and generally behaving respectfully towards me, you then launched into a tirade at me. That's not very polite.
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-07-27 01:40 am (UTC)Anyway, my apologies. I thought by your response that you were interested in debate.
Part 2
Date: 2004-07-26 05:03 pm (UTC)Let me relate an illustrative little story from the beginning of my brief tenure with the MA Dept. of Public Utilities (which has since become the Dept. of Telecommunications and Energy). When I first started, I held down the fort while the rest of the staff ran a little conference for utility companies. The purpose of this conference was to get representative of all the utility companies into one place, so it could be explained to all of them en masse that they really only were allowed to bill someone with whom they had a contractual relationship.
(Think about that for a moment.)
That is to say, if you had a customer who failed to pay his bill, you were not entitled to track down his elderly mother and tell her that if she didn't pay her son's electric bill, they'd ruin her credit report. (Force and fraud!) Nor can you shake down roommates, landlords, ex-spouses, and random other people. You could only try to extract the money from the person you sold the service to.
The reason the conference had to be held was that the problem of utility companies trying to shake down other people than those with whom they had a contractual agreement was endemic. So it had to be explained to them by the government, no, really, you only get to dun your customers, and if you don't stop behaving otherwise, we're going to punish you severely.
Now, I'd think what with big-L-Libertarians' reverence for the contract, that they'd think this was great. I don't know; maybe they do think this is how government should behave. Somehow, I don't get that impression.
So when I hear a big-L-Libertarian complain about regulation without specifying which regulations, I figure they quite literally have no idea what regulations are for or do, and that they are wholly unconcerned with the whole "force and fraud" principle -- they're just using it as a ratiocination for lowering their own taxes.
Did I answer the question?
Re: Part 2
Date: 2004-07-26 07:33 pm (UTC)I think the problem in your example is that one (good) law isn't being enforced, and this is apparently justification for additional laws. This seems to be the same argument that "conservatives" are making in the gay-marriage-amendment debate - judges are overstepping the bounds of the constitution and permitting legislatures to do the same, at many levels, and so the presumed solution is to add to the constitution, yet another amendment that the judges will "interpret" to mean something other than what it says anyway (i.e., even if you oppose gay marriage, you won't get what you want).
Back to your point: Yes, you can only include people in a contract who agreed to the contract. You and I can't create a contract that requires Frank to pay us money, absent his approval as well.
Can utility companies ruin someone else's credit report for refusal to pay a third party's bill? I'll admit I'm unsure. If they can do it to anyone they choose, this is a huge problem in whichever laws govern credit reports (if any do so). If it is a rule of a credit reporting agency, it's the last time I trust that agency when I find out: how can I be sure the information I get about _anyone_ from them is accurate?
On the other hand, if the person is a guarantor, then they might be contractually obliged to pay, by a contract they agreed to. For example, my sophomore year of college, some friends of mine and I got an apartment off-campus. One way to move in required our choice of a large security deposit or a guarantor. We ultimately paid the large security deposit; had we chosen the guarantor, we would have needed a guarantor (usually parents, in the case of college students) to sign the contract with us, as a guarantor. In the event that we default on our rent, we would lose our security deposit (two months' rent, I believe), if we opted for that, or in the event of a guarantor, that person would be obligated to pay; this is something that they would have agreed to when they signed as a guarantor.
To simplify: if my parents sign as a guarantor that I will pay my end of a contract, and I neglect to do so, then it is valid to collect from them. It is not valid to collect from them if they did not agree to such a contract.
So it had to be explained to them by the government, no, really, you only get to dun your customers, and if you don't stop behaving otherwise, we're going to punish you severely.
You'd think these people would've had lawyers to explain it to them. In the situation I described above - in which the laws governing contracts are sufficient to handle the situation - they probably would've been sued for wrongful harassment (I know that's not the legal term for it - how would you describe trying to enforce a contract on someone who had not agreed to it?).
You said:
So when I hear a big-L-Libertarian complain about regulation without specifying which regulations, I figure they quite literally have no idea what regulations are for or do, and that they are wholly unconcerned with the whole "force and fraud" principle -- they're just using it as a ratiocination for lowering their own taxes.
Right. One of the worst things about people who habitually discuss politics is the problem of speaking on subjects that they know little; they may have heard others speak of it occasionally, and remember the big points. They might have been convinced by someone who knew what he was talking about that government regulations are bad, and then tried to argue the conclusion while missing the steps in between. They're either unconcerned or just ignorant.
Lastly:
Did I answer the question?
Yes, quite eloquently. I still think we're missing each other on a few things, and I would like to continue this conversation. If you have the time to respond, I look forward to reading your response.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-23 10:45 am (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/users/budhaboy/542137.html
I made a few days ago.