Only One is Needed

[Amianthus]

1. I know the FDA isn't well-liked, but look at some of the minor stuff they do. Let's take something like rules for pasteurization of milk. Mind you, there other processes that work (we use a very expedient process in this country, which is actually what manufacturers prefer, but is also why our cheese and milk taste like crap compared to Europe and Canada). Still, this is likely an overall good thing as it prevents nasty infections from the public. Who would handle such minor regulations with Libertarians? Would it be no one?

Why can't it be handled like the pasteurization of eggs?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why can't it be handled like the pasteurization of eggs?
======================================
Are eggs pasteurized?  How?

I have never tried to hatch a supermarket egg.
 I heard they would not hatch because they were unfertilized.

I am certain that if eggs are indeed pasteurized, this is done without taking them out of the shell.
Putting the egg back in the shell would be difficult, but closing the shell would likely be impossible.

 

[Amianthus]

Why can't it be handled like the pasteurization of eggs?
======================================
Are eggs pasteurized?  How?

They are heated long enough to kill bacteria but not long enough to cook the eggs.

This is done voluntarily by some egg producers for a portion of their product. Consumers are free to buy pasteurized or non-pasteurized eggs. If you are making something that is uncooked but contains eggs (cold soufflés, mousses, and chiffons, etc.), you should use pasteurized eggs (they're a bit more expensive). There are also techniques for pasteurizing eggs at home using a microwave or on your stove, without cooking the eggs. If you are going to cook the end product, buying a pasteurized egg is overkill. The same thing is true for milk - if you are only going to use the milk in cooked products, buying it pasteurized is useless. However, the government (via the FDA) makes it nearly impossible to buy non-pasteurized milk.

You can tell if the egg is pasteurized because the egg producers that pasteurize eggs will stamp the eggs with an indicator that it's pasteurized.


An article about the release of pasteurized eggs: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_May_17/ai_62137491

Regardless, it's a demonstration of voluntary health safety that is not governed by a government organization - which is what JS wanted to discuss.

[Amianthus]

However, the government (via the FDA) makes it nearly impossible to buy non-pasteurized milk.

Interestingly, it's also nearly impossible to find non-pasteurized apple cider anymore. I prefer to drink the non-pasteurized product, because the heat changes the flavor, but it's become harder to find non-pasteurized apple cider over the years.

[Universe Prince]

I've always wondered a few things about Libertarians Prince, if you don't mind answering. Honest questions, so no tricky follow ups or expected answers here.

I don't mind answering at all. But to be fair, I have to say before I start answering that I'm just one libertarian guy, and what I say here should not be considered definitive libertarian positions. I'm sure you realize that already, JS, but there may be others reading this who don't.

1. I know the FDA isn't well-liked, but look at some of the minor stuff they do. Let's take something like rules for pasteurization of milk. Mind you, there other processes that work (we use a very expedient process in this country, which is actually what manufacturers prefer, but is also why our cheese and milk taste like crap compared to Europe and Canada). Still, this is likely an overall good thing as it prevents nasty infections from the public. Who would handle such minor regulations with Libertarians? Would it be no one?

Essentially, it would be the milk producers. The producers would decide and consumers would likely have a choice, not unlike consumers haveing a choice between regular or organic food. This is an imperfect example, but it is the first one that came to mind. Amianthus' example of apple cider is probably a better one. Personally, I tend to think there would also be consumer advocacy and protection groups that would serve to monitor and inform on the quality of products, not entirely unlike Consumer Reports.

2. How do you explain The Jungle? by Upton Sinclair. I'm aware of the background of the author and the book, but the story itself is very much based on reality. Isn't it difficult to argue for industry without the burden of government when past examples of it have not exactly been shining moments? I know Sinclair didn't really mean for his book to inspire further legislation on inspection, but that was an argument from a socialist view, not a Libertarian view.

Well, this is hard for me to answer because I don't know how much of The Jungle was or was not based in reality. Some people claim it was accurate, and some people claim it was not. I've never investigated, so I don't know. However, I will speak to the larger topic of what about leaving business to itself in light of past actions.

Governments, generally, have certainly had their share of less than shining moments. And I don't just mean the obvious examples of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. I can point to Jim Crow laws and the efforts of eugenic sterilization by various states here in America, to name just two examples. But hardly anyone ever asks how can we continue to let these democratic republics function without regulation, say by a dictator or sort of higher authority. And seemingly almost no one ever questions giving government more authority. Yet we are told past bad actions by businesses reveal a need to regulate them and to take authority over their own operations away from them. I think this is the reverse of the situation we ought to have. I'm not saying businesses should get a free pass to do whatever they want. Certainly they ought to be held responsible for abuses of rights and fraud and the like. But it seems to me that businesses are more open to correction than government. We get to vote every few years for politicians and our money is taken to be spent as government sees fit, with little if any recourse for the voter if he does not like the outcome. Businesses, on the other hand, get "votes" all day, everyday, in the form of customer purchases. And if someone does not like what a business has done, he can not spend his money there, he can demand a refund, sue the company, any number of things to address wrongs, including writing a book. So, imo, the argument that businesses need government regulations because of past bad actions is a weak argument at best.

Please feel free to ask follow-up questions. I am happy to have someone asking rather than making silly assumptions.

[Plane]

Yet we are told past bad actions by businesses reveal a need to regulate them and to take authority over their own operations away from them. I think this is the reverse of the situation we ought to have. I'm not saying businesses should get a free pass to do whatever they want. Certainly they ought to be held responsible for abuses of rights and fraud and the like. But it seems to me that businesses are more open to correction than government.

      Rockefeller ran his compeditors out of business , so did Lenin. Neither Government nor business can be trusted to remain honest  , how is the best balance struck?

      With the People vigilent , the business community can be played off against the govenment and vice versa, if the populace igores one or both the potential for abuse rises to certainty.

[_JS]

I appreciate the answers.

Do Libertarians believe in "Market Failure?"

What about corporate structure itself. Is there a point at which a company could be so large and powerful that it might be a threat to liberal freedoms?

[Amianthus]

      Rockefeller ran his compeditors out of business

He was able to do this because of a number of "secret deals" that he brokered. Had the deals not been secret, he would not have been able to build as quickly as he did, and some of his competitors would have been able to broker similar deals. Indeed, some of them tried to do so, when they found out, but it was too late.

This argues for more transparency in business dealings, rather than government oversight.

[Universe Prince]

Do Libertarians believe in "Market Failure?"

Probably some do, but I am sure much depends on what is defined as a market "failure". For the most part, in my experience, libertarians are pro-market and tend to consider "market failure" a myth and a rhetorical crutch. Some non-libertarian people will take this at face value and start saying libertarians believe the market will solve everything, but libertarians, in my experience, believe no such thing. Very few if any libertarians believe the market is a flawless panacea. Of course the market is flawed; it is only a social institution, meaning people are involved. That does not mean, however, that every bad occurrence in the market is a failure of the market. What I have observed is that when the term "market failure" is used, it is generally applied to an outcome that someone doesn't like brought about by specific people, not the market as a whole. And so, imo, one might as well refer to it as a "life failure" as a "market failure". Larger issues that some people call "market failures", such as circumstances leading to the Great Depression, are generally considered, by libertarians, not failures of the market but the result of government interference in the market though things like taxes and regulations, and so would be a failure of government planning and/or oversight of the market. This is a brief explanation, but there are a number of books written on this subject.

What about corporate structure itself. Is there a point at which a company could be so large and powerful that it might be a threat to liberal freedoms?

Yes, of course. One commonly overlooked complaint by libertarians, or at least economist libertarians, is that the partnering of power between large corporations and government is a threat to liberal freedoms. Despite what some people will say, libertarians are not in favor of businesses and corporations being free to do anything and everything they please. Even anarchist libertarians will talk about protections against fraud and abuse. They tend to believe these will be solved in the market for the most part. Unethical and fraudulent business practices will ultimately lead to the downfall of the business, for example Enron, while honest and reputable business practices will result in economic success. This does not mean every result in the market would please everyone or that bad things would not happen. It does, however, mean there would be no corporate welfare to prop up large businesses with otherwise bad business practices and no way for corporations to buy favors and pork spending and influence with government to skew the market in their favor. And so generally speaking, the libertarian position is that the market would create natural checks and balances on the power of corporations. Again, not that any of this means there will be some sort of market utopia, just that a liberty-minded approach will result in a better outcome than the government regulatory approach.

[Universe Prince]

Neither Government nor business can be trusted to remain honest  , how is the best balance struck?

To trust neither one. Trust people, individuals, not business or government.

With the People vigilent , the business community can be played off against the govenment and vice versa, if the populace igores one or both the potential for abuse rises to certainty.

But the people are not vigilant. They have no time to play watchdogs to business and government. They are busy trying to live their lives and pursue their own happiness. As well they should. And I submit that business and government cannot be played off one another as you suggest to any real success. The end result would be what we have now, politicians and businessmen brokering power together with campaign contributions and and pork spending and collaborations on regulations, or something worse like fascism or socialism where in the businesses and the state become one. I suggest that instead of looking to play the one against the other, we look to increasing the liberty of the individual. That would lessen the ability to abuse by both businesses and government.

[_JS]

Thanks for the answers Prince.

Though it is flawed, I've noticed that my scores on the Political Compass test have changed over the years (though certainly in a definite direction). It is interesting to see how that relates to one's actual political philosophy.

Though we might differ drastically in some concepts, I think we have a lot of agreement on individual liberties, which is surprising in some cases. Perhaps it shouldn't be.

[Universe Prince]

Thanks for the answers Prince.

You're welcome, JS.

Though it is flawed, I've noticed that my scores on the Political Compass test have changed over the years (though certainly in a definite direction). It is interesting to see how that relates to one's actual political philosophy.

I haven't taken the test in a while. But I have moved, over the past ten years or so from a rather authoritarian conservative position to a libertarian one. Of course, at the time, I did not think of myself as authoritarian, and the basic fundamentals of what I have believed have not really changed all that much. It's just that my political philosophy has become, I think, more consistently in line with my basic beliefs in liberty.

Though we might differ drastically in some concepts, I think we have a lot of agreement on individual liberties, which is surprising in some cases. Perhaps it shouldn't be.

I confess I've been surprised in how frequently we agree. I'll have to turn the tables and ask you some questions sometime. I would right now, but I have other pressing matters to deal with and I'm not really in the right frame of mind.

As I said that, a very basic question came to mind. What do you think is the nature of rights? Are they fundamental and unalienable or merely what society says they are? Or something else? You don't need to get in depth, and you can take your time. I may be away from the Saloon for a few days.

[_JS]

I'll think on it then (though you may have to remind me if it has been a few days!).

[Universe Prince]

What do you think is the nature of rights? Are they fundamental and unalienable or merely what society says they are? Or something else? You don't need to get in depth, and you can take your time. I may be away from the Saloon for a few days.

I'll think on it then (though you may have to remind me if it has been a few days!).

Okay. I'm back.

[_JS]

What do you think is the nature of rights? Are they fundamental and unalienable or merely what society says they are? Or something else?

I've given this some thought while you were away.

I think the nature of rights exists within the minds of man. I don't believe we are endowed with any fundamental or inalienable rights. Nor do I believe that it necessarily depends upon the whims of society (though it could if one's government was set up in such a way).

So, for example the idea that the right to one's property is the building block of other rights and is a fundamental right is, to me, just an abstract notion to support one's own political philosophy. Prime Minister Thatcher was an avid believer in exactly the same thing and once said that any Conservative who didn't believe in the fundamental right to own property should leave the party.

But these exist only in the here and now. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." We do? Why? Who died and made John Locke a god?

Now, as a faithful follower of Christ, the only real "right" I can consider truly inalienable is the right to choose whether or not to accept or deny the Holy Spirit. There are consequences to living with that choice but to my knowledge none of them force me to accept those "truths to be self-evident."