Here is a link if my embed doesn't show up...
This is very very off base; at least as far as a hit piece on...libertarianism...goes. The whole thing is a setup to demonize libertarianism. I have not seen aything quite like in on RT before. Below is the comment I left on the thread I found it on. That reference to "fraud" that he makes in passing would be the "risk" that companies face in releasing what amounts to poison. Fraud is illegal, just like selling poison as food would be an example of. "Insurance" would be the "regulatory system." People don't want to get sued. This jackoff makes so many off base assumptions in order to say this, I'm surprised people take it seriously. Six and a half minutes and he even says "we the people can prevent corporataions from..." "We the people" are not "the State." Let's not perpetuate that illusion.
Dear goodness, the idiocity. This guy's a complete moron.
Sure is easy to beat up a strawman. :-D
Now, I'd just like to know what any of that had to do with libertarianism.
Clayton -
This guy= Champion
We can't have libertarianism... Because mad cow disease...
He does hit on something, however, health/safety regulation needs to be some of the last stuff to go.
@Neodoxy: I disagree. The sooner we de-monopolize the regulatory business in all sectors, the better. The key is to "de-monopolize" rather than "abolish the regulators". This is where people like this idiot go wrong - they strawman libertarians as saying we want to "push the Big Red Button" that causes all regulators to vaporize overnight. Such an act would bring utter chaos.
The problem is that the market in lines of production that have long been monopolized by the government is atrophied and time is needed for producers to enter the market and offer alternatives to the government's previously monopolized services and allow consumers to switch of their own free choice. Absent a prohibition on competition, I think this shift could happen so fast in some cases it would almost feel like you pushed the Big Red Button (for example, radio frequency spectrum regulation or first-class mail delivery). In other cases, where an industry is more conservative, even a repeal of prohibition on competing with the government would not cause an overnight shift. Food regulations are probably on the more conservative end of things but I can envision a moderately rapid shift.
Clayton,
I think that we're talking about two different things. What I am arguing is that in order to maximize the regulatory structure the general perspective, the idea which many people, in this case consumers, hold, needs to radically change. If we simply deregulate product quality regulation without getting rid of much of the structure: I.E the monopoly of ideas, the taxation structure, and regulatory barriers to entry, then it is likely that there will be problems, specifically because many people aren't used to thinking "Is this properly regulated?", while at the same time firms are used to a good deal of legal protection by governments. This needs to be at least partially rectified before we can switch over to regulation for what we'll call more "dangerous" goods, otherwise much less dramatized and grandioso problems like the one described in the video could occur.
You have a perfect answer to this with ending a monopoly service on this provision, but with still an active government regulatory agency until it is possible to phase out the government completely.
Although, we have to be weary of those rogue companies that can afford to open up anywhere at random and can sell their permanently infected meat to millions of unsuspecting consumers :P
... I am reminded of this genius who was anti-Paul because in the absence of environmental protection standards companies would instantly find a way to convert all of their waste invisible and untraceable chemicals which would destroy people's health and livelihood without them knowing... Don't ya know?
@Neodoxy: OK, I completely agree with that - I can't count the number of newscasts I've watched with one of the anchors grilling Dr. Paul or Schiff or somebody of that caliber and they just completely miss the fact that of course if you focus in on just one part of the system and "eliminate it", it's going to lead to problems. It's like saying, "What if we just stopped mailing paychecks to all police officers around the country overnight? What then? Huh?"
This is why I'm adamant that education is more important than political action; political action by its very nature can only focus on particular courses of action which may or may not improve things in the final balance. I mean, that's the whole point of the calculation problem and the Hayekian knowledge problem: the long-run consequences of particular policy actions are unforeseeable, in general. But education enables people across many walks of life to see how liberty serves their ends and how they can and should promote liberty in their domain of experience.
That said, I think there are a few things that are such obvious targets (e.g. the Fed) that it makes sense to lobby for their direct elimination. Central banking scrambles the public's perception of the true burden of government and war, which lowers resistance and thereby guarantees the regimentation of society and the corruption of culture. It's like a malignant tumor that just needs to be cut out and discarded before it destroys its host.